True strength of 1935 Hurricane...

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
Anonymous

True strength of 1935 Hurricane...

#1 Postby Anonymous » Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:17 am

Offically, the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane or "Hurricane #2" was 160 mph at landfall in the Florida Keys. A MEASURED pressure of 892 MB was recorded. Now take Isabel's 165 mph-915 MB. About every 5 millibars the wins increased 5 mph. 160 mph-920 mb, 165 mph-915 mb... If the 892 mb pressure is true (BEST BET THAT IT IS) than winds at landfall were sure to be in the 185 mph range. If this is correct, I expect the post-anaylsis to show something like that. Also, if this is true, winds went from 70 mph (990 mb rough guess) to 185 mph (892 mb) in just 24 hrs. AMAZING. Any comments?
0 likes   

User avatar
Hurricanehink
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:05 pm
Location: New Jersey

#2 Postby Hurricanehink » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:05 am

That makes some sense. Hurricane Mitch had a pressure of 905, with winds of 180. If your theory is true, than the Labor Day Hurricane would have winds of 190, quite possible. Allen, on the other hand, had winds of 185 with a pressure of 899. Around that range. Camile, 905, had winds of 195 (which I don't think is true), so the pressure just has to be somewhat low, like <905. However, these are all assuming that the pressure was 892. It is certainly possible that the pressure was not as low. I'm guessing the pressure used may noy be right, and it may have only had 910-920 millibars at is peak.
0 likes   

User avatar
weatherluvr
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: Long Island NY

#3 Postby weatherluvr » Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:22 am

I think it may be even higher. That storm was so compact, and the damage so phenomenal, that I think 200 mph is a possibility.
0 likes   

User avatar
weatherluvr
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: Long Island NY

#4 Postby weatherluvr » Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:25 am

Hurricanehink wrote:However, these are all assuming that the pressure was 892. It is certainly possible that the pressure was not as low. I'm guessing the pressure used may noy be right, and it may have only had 910-920 millibars at is peak.


The instrument that recorded the 892 mb pressure was tested and calibrated in a wind tunnel, and was deemed to be accurate. So the pressure reading was correct.
0 likes   

User avatar
Stormsfury
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10549
Age: 53
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:27 pm
Location: Summerville, SC

#5 Postby Stormsfury » Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:54 pm

Hurricane Allen was a HUGE storm in size, and thus not very tightly packed, nowhere near the compact size of the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane. IMHO, sustained winds were 190 mph, and possibly higher.

This is a much weaker Allen just before landfall in South Texas in 1980, but that's comparably the large size throughout ...

Image

Camille was in size, smaller, than Allen, but estimations are that the Labor Day Hurricane was even smaller in size ... and that point makes for the fact that unlike in Allen, Mitch, and Gilbert (due to their large sizes) that the wind radii was tightly clustered and hence, would likely be found to be at LEAST 165 kts (190 mph) ... and some theories suggest that the winds were even higher ...

JetMaxx and I discussed this about the Labor Day Hurricane before, and found some amazing information ... including, the sand on the beach being blown so violently that it created its own sparks.

SF
0 likes   

Anonymous

#6 Postby Anonymous » Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:57 pm

I never knew a storm can intensify that quickly. But it is possible....
11pm- 70 mph
2am- 90 mph
5am- 120 mph
8am- 150 mph
11am- 180 mph
2pm- 200 mph
0 likes   

User avatar
weatherluvr
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: Long Island NY

#7 Postby weatherluvr » Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:08 pm

Not just the intensity, but the size of the storm contracted way down at the same time. Some of the remains were sandblasted to the point of being identified only by jewelry or belt buckles. I can't wait to see what the reanalysis turns up on this storm.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#8 Postby Derek Ortt » Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:10 pm

Possibly as high as 200KT. Only storm that can compare in size was Iris back in 2001. That was 125-130KT at landfall with a 948mb pressure. The RMW was only about 4.6 KNM and was actually 100% larger than what is was from earlier in the day. The obs show that 1935 wasn't much larger, certainly much smaller than Andrew. So, the comparisons would need to be made with Iris. If we use the 5KT for 5mb factor, this would produce a sustained wind of roughly 195-200KT at the time of landfall. Now, this may be high as this was slightly larger than was Iris
0 likes   

Anonymous

#9 Postby Anonymous » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:53 pm

220 mph! I heard talk once that winds GUSTED up to 250 mph. That could blow a train off it's tracks.
0 likes   

User avatar
Stormsfury
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10549
Age: 53
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:27 pm
Location: Summerville, SC

#10 Postby Stormsfury » Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:33 am

~Floydbuster wrote:220 mph! I heard talk once that winds GUSTED up to 250 mph. That could blow a train off it's tracks.


IMHO, there's very little doubt that the winds may have gusted in the 250 mph range based on exactly what happened to the surrounding directly struck by the Labor Day Hurricane. The findings will be interesting, and it's quite possible, no ... likely, the Labor Day Hurricane will be stronger than Camille, and the strongest North Atlantic Storm in the list to this date.

http://www.miamicountryday.org/oncampus ... /frame.htm
0 likes   

Anonymous

#11 Postby Anonymous » Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:36 pm

Amazing.
0 likes   

Valkhorn
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:09 am
Contact:

#12 Postby Valkhorn » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:27 am

When is the re-analysis going to be done?
0 likes   

User avatar
Stormsfury
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10549
Age: 53
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:27 pm
Location: Summerville, SC

#13 Postby Stormsfury » Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:56 pm

Valkhorn wrote:When is the re-analysis going to be done?


Already underway, but the final results may not be released until the end of 2004...

SF
0 likes   

User avatar
isobar
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Louisville, KY

#14 Postby isobar » Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:37 pm

I read that the pressure gradient in the '35 Labor Day cane was 1" every 6 miles! :eek:
0 likes   

timNms
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1371
Age: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:45 pm
Location: Seminary, Mississippi
Contact:

#15 Postby timNms » Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:17 pm

I thought that it had already been decided that the 35 cane was deemed to have been stronger than Camille. I was thinking that the top 3 canes were ranked in this order:
1.Labor Day '35 hurricane
2.Camille
3.Andrew
Yeah, I think Camille's winds were at least 195 at landfall. They had to be pretty high for her to be as strong as she was by the time she reached our area.
I do remember Camille. I live about 90-100 miles north of Gulfport, MS. Winds here during the night were easily sustained at 100mph with much higher gusts. About 20 miles to our southeast, sustained winds were officially clocked at 125 in Columbia, MS. I can only imagine what it must have been like on the MS coast that night.
Looking back at what Camille did to MS, I can't imagine how horrible it must have been during the labor day cane. Can you imagine being sandblasted to death? HORRIBLE!!
0 likes   

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 29113
Age: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Cypress, TX
Contact:

#16 Postby vbhoutex » Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:58 pm

timNms wrote:I thought that it had already been decided that the 35 cane was deemed to have been stronger than Camille. I was thinking that the top 3 canes were ranked in this order:
1.Labor Day '35 hurricane
2.Camille
3.Andrew
Yeah, I think Camille's winds were at least 195 at landfall. They had to be pretty high for her to be as strong as she was by the time she reached our area.
I do remember Camille. I live about 90-100 miles north of Gulfport, MS. Winds here during the night were easily sustained at 100mph with much higher gusts. About 20 miles to our southeast, sustained winds were officially clocked at 125 in Columbia, MS. I can only imagine what it must have been like on the MS coast that night.
Looking back at what Camille did to MS, I can't imagine how horrible it must have been during the labor day cane. Can you imagine being sandblasted to death? HORRIBLE!!


I'll back you up on Camille Tim!! I lived in Gulf Breeze, FL. when Camille hit, about 120 miles East of the center. Our sustained were at 100 mph also. We had an eight foot storm surge(we measured it) in the sound behind our friends house where we also watched 45' waves washing across Santa Rosa Island at a point where it was at least 1/2 mile wide if not wider. It was and INCREDIBLE EXPERIENCE where I was and after seeing the TOTAL DEVASTATION along the coast and up into your area I would never wish what I saw on the WORST ENEMY I MIGHT EVER HAVE. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING WORSE THAT WHAT I SAW!! If the 1935 Labor Day Storm was worse IT WAS UNIMAGINABLE and many of the reports I have read make it sound like it was.
0 likes   
Skywarn, C.E.R.T.
Please click below to donate to STORM2K to help with the expenses of keeping the site going:
Image

timNms
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1371
Age: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:45 pm
Location: Seminary, Mississippi
Contact:

#17 Postby timNms » Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:48 am

I can remember how it looked behind our house. We live in the country and there were MANY trees downed during Camille.

Wasn't the official storm surge measured at something like 22 feet where Camille made landfall?
0 likes   

User avatar
isobar
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Louisville, KY

#18 Postby isobar » Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:54 pm

timNms wrote:Wasn't the official storm surge measured at something like 22 feet where Camille made landfall?


You're right Tim:
    Camille's intensity in Harrison County was compounded by the geography of the area in which sections of the county were inundated from both the north and south (Leyden 1985). Maps depicting the extent of flooding show that the community of Pass Christian and parts of Biloxi were completely inundated by flood waters. Storm waters rose to 22.6 feet at Pass Christian, 17 feet behind Pass Christian, 21.6 feet at Long Beach, 21 feet at Gulfport, 19.5 feet at Biloxi, and 15 feet on the Biloxi Bay (USACE 1970) (Figure 4).


This info taken from: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pielke/camille/index.html
0 likes   

User avatar
isobar
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Louisville, KY

#19 Postby isobar » Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:25 pm

Stormsfury wrote:JetMaxx and I discussed this about the Labor Day Hurricane before, and found some amazing information ... including, the sand on the beach being blown so violently that it created its own sparks.


I read that somewhere also, SF. And I was real disappointed to find this detail omitted from Willie Drye's book "Storm of the Century".

One of the un-official bp readings was 26.00 (880 mb) which was taken by Ed Butters and also witnessed by 5 others. However the numbnut was so freaked out by what he saw, he flung it out the car window into the storm. So the 892 stands as the official reading but actually could be lower.
0 likes   

User avatar
weatherluvr
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: Long Island NY

#20 Postby weatherluvr » Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:54 pm

isobar wrote:One of the un-official bp readings was 26.00 (880 mb) which was taken by Ed Butters and also witnessed by 5 others. However the numbnut was so freaked out by what he saw, he flung it out the car window into the storm. So the 892 stands as the official reading but actually could be lower.


I never heard about that. It seems like it's reasonable, given the power of the storm. DAMN YOU, BUTTERS! :D
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CFLHurricane, Coolcruiseman, Cpv17, duilaslol, gatorcane, IcyTundra, ouragans, SFLcane, TheBurn, WaveBreaking, Weathertracker96 and 153 guests