The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane had a minimum pressure of 892 millibars, by far the lowest on record for landfalling US hurricanes.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availibility
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- Climate Abstract Generator
- Climate Abstract Generator
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
Email Subscription
Join 1,948 other subscribersRecent Comments
saveenergy on Is Antarctica Melting? saveenergy on 65 Years Of Progress! Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun


You would say that perhaps the pressures of landfalling hurricanes should be “adjusted” down for the old days. That is because the network of stations was less extensive in the old days, nor did we have aircraft, satellites and radar closely monitoring the storms.
Cherry pick much? If you went by total overall pressure, you would have seen that Wilma in 2005 was much lower than the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane, and so was Gilbert in 1988.
You also ignored the pacific basin, which has had several storms below 890 or even 880mb.
Are you a complete moron? Is there some part of “landfalling” and following html links which isn’t clear to you?
This is why I am spamming a lot of people, because your side is stupider than crap.
Anything in the old days should be adjusted up considering what you say, not down. Lack of observation compared to the present should be taken into account. Now of course landfalling hurricanes would still be spotted but it is true storms well off shore and the time spent at more than a certain strength are spotted more easily now.
It’s like sunspots, you have to take into account this. they do with sunspots, not so much with storms.
Andy
If you separate the atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms data into decades (1851-1860, 1861-1870, etc.), you will find the average strength of a strong hurricane (category 3, 4, or 5) also peaked in the 1930’s (1931-1940), at 4.167 (whereas for 2001-2010, for example, it was 3.868, even though there were more than twice as many strong hurricanes in that decade as there were in the ’30’s). Category 5 hurricanes don’t even appear in the records until 1924 (which implies a change in human record-keeping, not an actual increase in storm strength), and then they average one such category 5 every 2.6 years, or about 4 per decade; in that context, 2005 was an exceptional year, when there were four category 5’s, in one year. If you look at all atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes, the average strength per storm (taking a tropical storm as a category 0) peaked in the 1940’s, at 1.469 (whereas, for example, in 1931-40 it was 1.174, and in 2001-2010, it was 1.277). I have thought about doing a post on the hurricane and tropical storm data from 1851, but frankly, I am no expert on these storms, and anyone who has any real interest in it, or is at all worried about the “trends”, should do it themselves, using the above link to find the data. That should cure anyone of their alarm on the subject (if they are honest, and minimally competent about taking simple averages), and in the easiest and most convincing way possible for them.