Talk:1928 Okeechobee Hurricane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Hurricanes
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
The following comments have been left for this page:
Portal:Caribbean
 Caribbean Portal
This article is supported by the Caribbean WikiProject, which provides a central approach to Caribbean-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please help us by assessing and improving articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] Note on name

Some sources list this as the "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" or "San Felipe Hurricane" or "San Felipe II Hurricane" (see San Felipe Hurricane for info on other hurricanes of that name). This article uses "Okeechobee Hurricane" as its name since it's shorter, the NOAA Okeechobee page names it that, and the name is still suitably unique so there's no chance of confusion. Redirects and disambiguations have been set up for the other common names. In other NOAA lists it is included as both "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" and "San Felipe Hurricane" - sometimes being included twice in the same list. Note that "Okeechobee" means "big water". Jdorje 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"San Felipe Segundo" is the name as it was known to those countries who suffered MAJOR IMPACT. Okeechobee is solely a U.S. perspective. Please include both, regardless of length. Confusion is arising due to this desire to rename a historical hurricane that was known by people in the Caribbean as "San Felipe Segundo"

[edit] Note on date

The 1928 article listed the hurricane as occurring at Lake Okeechobee on Sep. 17. Based on my research I changed this to Sep. 16. The hurricane struck on the night of the 16th, with the greatest surge happening around 10 pm. Of course it wasn't until the next day that the damage could be assessed. Jdorje 02:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone changed the date-first-spotted to september 6. But there is nothing in the sources about this. The only thing I can find is [1] which lists the 10th. I'm assuming this is a confusion with the Great Miami Hurricane and I'm changing it back.
Not so fast. UNISYS, which takes it's track from the National Hurricane Center's Best Track Database (big file!), lists September 6. See here:[2]. I'm reverting the change if someone hasn't done so already.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Great but can we add some references for this? Jdorje 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note on death toll

The combined death toll is now put at 4075+. This comes directly from [3] which shows the total death toll as 3375-4075. The footnote (b) explains that this includes 1575 from the Caribbean and 1800-2500 from Florida; note that this document is from 1997. For years the official death toll from Florida was 1836. However in [4] we see that the US death toll is revised to the upper limit of the previous range: 2500+ (this happened in 2003, according to one of the other sources). This clearly makes the total death toll 4075+.

The breakdown of the Caribbean deaths is unclear. According to the explanation in the footnote from above [5], other sources list 300 or 312 deaths in Puerto Rico, 600-1200 for Guadaloupe, 18 for Grand Turk, and 3 for Martinique. Totalling the upper bounds for these ranges comes out to 1533, still below the Caribbean total of 1575. One Wikipedia author listed the deaths in Puerto Rico as 1000-2000, but there is no external source for this and it seems likely this is lumping in Guadaloupe. Jdorje

This figure (4075) has been listed for some time, but the majority of sources still say 3411. That list is never updated. Notice how Mitch, Georges, Floyd (all post-1996) and others are missing from the list. And please sign your comments (~~~~).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "this list", I guess you mean the 1997 document. Obviously the list from 1997 isn't going to have any data from post-1997, including the later revision from 1836 to 2500+. Note the other list IS updated (to 2004 anyway) and includes 2500+, but this is only from the United States (plus an addendum including 312 from PR). The 4075 number is simple addition of the two numbers (neither original research nor undue extrapolation). Finally note that "most sources" don't count since this isn't a vote - the 1997 document lists all sources, then gives their own revised total of 3375-4075 (which is more accurate in hindsight, as the later revision of the Florida death toll shows). And, that comment isn't "mine" but explains the reasoning behind the current article (if the article is changed the comment should be too...hence the lack of signing). Jdorje 06:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Wait, what? What second list? There's only 1 list. That post didn't make much sense. The fact that most sources give 3411. Those little numbers on the side are notes to sources. Look how many there are next to the 3,411 figure. The only NOAA source I could find that lists the 2,500 figure for the US only lists 312 deaths for Puerto Rico, which is clearly an underestimate. I see more evidence pointing toward 3,411 than 4,075. 4,075 is a round number by the way, a trademark of inaccuracy. Also, the death toll table gives a 1,575 figure for non-US deaths, yet the source it gives does not mention this figure at all. It just says 'over 300'. This article needs to be corrected. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a democracy. It doesn't matter how many sources list each figure, all that matters is the official source. If you look at the pastdeadly reference, it lists 1575 deaths from the caribbean and 1800-2500 from Florida for a total of 3375-4075. This document is from 1997. However if you look at the other reference - and this is easy to confirm by doing some research - you'll see that as part of the re-analysis (post-1997, circa 2003) the 1800-2500 from Florida was changed to 2500+ (actually 2500-3000). In fact if you just use the two references given to confirm the two numbers given...I don't see how there's any room for confusion. Jdorje 08:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Note there are two references and thus, obviously, two lists. Jdorje 08:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As for Puerto Rico, all of the sources listed by the NOAA document give figures of around 300 for Puerto Rico. If you believe this is incorrect you need to find an official source to back you up. Jdorje 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First category 5

According to various sources this is the first category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record. Records apparently go back to 1851 but before hunter airplanes (and later satellites) hurricanes out at sea were obviously not well monitored. This hurricane supposedly hit Puerto Rico as a category 5 (though sources for this are scarce); I don't think there are wind readings from out at sea. Based on the pressure measurements (which are more reliable) one might be doubtful that the hurricane ever reached category 5 status. But NOAA says that it was, and we should obviously follow their judgement. Jdorje

Actually NOAA says that it was only a category 4 at PR [6]. But UNISYS says it was a cat5 all the way over PR [7]. So...I don't know what to do with this. Jdorje 01:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It says it was a 4 in Florida. Further down the list in the addendum, it says it was a Category 5 in Puerto Rico. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. Jdorje 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on measurements

Measurements are given in their original form (to avoid loss of data) with the standard forms given in parenthesis. The original form for all pressure measurements is inHg and for windspeed is either knots or mph. Jdorje

[edit] Saintes Islands

This change made an addition mentioning the Saintes Islands. However there is no reference for this and I can't find anything about it (see this search, for instance). So I'm removing this claim. — jdorje (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wind reading

I wrote

The 160 mph (260 km/h) reading from Puerto Rico was the strongest wind measurement ever reported for an Atlantic hurricane up until that time; not until Hurricane Dog of 1950 were stronger winds measured in an Atlantic storm.

which seemed quite obvious to me. Although the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane was likely stronger, no wind measurements for it were taken at all and the NHC best-track currently puts it at 160 mph winds (probably just because they're conservative and that's the lowest possible Cat5 wind rating). However, some disclaimer here is surely justified. Next, there's the point that Dog's winds were flight-level, so we could change the sentence to

The 160 mph (260 km/h) reading from Puerto Rico was the strongest surface sustained wind measurement ever reported for an Atlantic hurricane up until that time; not until (insert storm here) were stronger winds measured in an Atlantic storm.

So the question is, what's the answer? The NHC surely has enough archives to determine this, but I don't think they are available. However I will point out that it's quite possible no storm has ever had stronger surface winds measured until the use of dropsondes allowed measuring surface winds while hurricanes were at sea.

Anyway, this is just an interesting observation. It is unlikely that we could find legitimate enough sources to support more than the current statement.

— jdorje (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage elsewhere

So how can we find out about damage elsewhere (outside of inland florida)? A likely source is the MWR (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1928.pdf - currently not referenced at all), though there are surely others. — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guadeloupe

From the MWR: "No reports of damage accompanied the barometric data [from guadeloupe]. However, press dipatches from Paris, France, indicate that great destruction was wrought by the hurricane in Guadeloupe...". This implies there is more to be found but one would have to dig into french archives. — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Kitts, Monteserrat

From the MWR: "The English islands of St. Kitts and Montserrat also suffered heavy losses". — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USVI

From the MWR: "The island of St. Croix suffered heavily in loss of life and in damage to property and crops". Elsewhere it says that the center of the storm passed 10 miles south of the island. — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rico

The MWR has a lot about PR. Just a few disorganized bits of trivia here: Apparently the 160 mph wind reading occurred 30 miles south of the storm's center and 3 hours before peak winds were reached. Shortly afterwards the anemometer was damaged; with various shadey extrapolations based on the reading after the anemometer was partially damaged, they conclude the reading would have been 190 mph had the instrument remained intact. Rainfall of over 25 inches was measured in some places. Loss of life was minimized because the island had plenty of warning. The Guayama 936 mbar reading was supposedly from the "vortex" of the storm, but in the next sentence they say hurricane-force winds were sustained there for 18 straight hours, with no mention of a letup as the eye passed. There were no reports from vessels at sea since they had been warned via radio and were staying out of the way. The most interesting bit: "several hundred thousand people were rendered homeless" - that is astounding for this time period. — jdorje (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard numerous reports that thousands of Puerto Ricans went unaccounted for. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous stats

This hurricane really does have some ridiculous statistics from its puerto rico landfall.

  • Guayama reported hurricane-force winds for 18 hours. Based on a a movement speed of 13 mph (confirmed by the best-track), that's a 234 mile diamater (or 117 mile radius) of hurricane-force winds (with a large margin of error). This is slightly larger than Katrina when it was a category 5 (although Katrina grew larger, to 125 miles radius, as it weakened).
  • San Juan reported a 160 mph wind reading (1-minute sustained) from a cup anemometer shortly before the instrument was damaged. After losing one of its cups, the anemometer continued to register 130 mph. The MWR author does some shady extrapolation to conclude that the 130 mph reading indicates 190 mph winds.
  • The San Juan 160 mph reading occurred 3 hours before peak winds and 30 miles north of the storm's path. Following the 13 mph rate of movement and doing a little triangulation that means the reading was taken 50 miles from the storm's center. I don't know exact numbers, but to have category 5 winds extend outward 50 miles is unheard of (though note that san juan was in the front-right quadrant).
  • Up to 29 inches of rain fell in portions of the island. This is over a period of about 24 hours.
  • Several hundred thousand were left homeless. I didn't even know that many people lived in PR!

Of course one is free to doubt these measurements. I don't know how accurate surface wind measurements from this time were supposed to be (in later decades air wind measurements were used almost exclusively, until it was discovered these were hugely overestimated). You can also look at the 936 mbar pressure reading from Guayama, supposedly taken from the "vortex" of the storm (despite the fact that Guayama reported 18 hours of continuous winds, implying it was never in the eye), and conclude that the storm was not a category 5 at all. All of the wind measurements are unconfirmed since the instruments were all destroyed and could not be calibrated.

— jdorje (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still todo

As a FA this article is basically finished. I know of no more information available on impact anywhere. Maybe I'll give the MWR a last run-through to see if there's any more to add on south florida. One thing that could be done, though, is a slight restructuring to add preparations and aftermath sections. A preparations section could be worthwhile since PR, the Bahamas, and Florida all had good warning of the storm's approach. Aftermath could cover the racial issues section. Also one thing I read in the MWR was interesting: apparently after this storm they confirmed what had been observed in the 1926 storm - that well-constructed buildings would suffer practically no damage from winds that would destroy inferior buildings. This is what lead to improved building codes in Florida that made later hurricanes like the 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane much less destructive. — jdorje (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Preparations? Jdorje, it's 1928. What's there to tell? Uncle Jeb and his neighbors went outside, closed the storm shutters, and hunkered down inside. There's a reason 4,000 people died. There was little preparation because there was so little warning. "Good warning" back then just meant that they knew about it before the winds started to pick up. Before the satellite age and before planes were made of something other than wood and canvas, all forecasting was completely earthbound. On Puerto Rico, all people had time to do was close storm shutters, take out a Bible, say a few prayers and kiss their butts goodbye. They had no warning and Floridians only had a warning when they read about Puerto Rico being obliterated in the morning papers. On the Bahamas, people just had nowhere to go. In 1947, planes were flying sorties into the thing twice a day since it passed north of Hispaniola. Floridians had at least a day's notice of that one coming. And given that transportation was faster and much more efficiant, people were able to get outta Dodge in time. An aftermath section would be useful though. The fact about building codes being improved is certainly something that should be mentioned. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's entirely not true! There is a lot of information about preparations in the MWR, much of which is embedded in the article. It is pretty clear that at the time, this was the best-forecast hurricane in history. The reason for the effective warnings was not planes, of course, but rather becuase the storm was spotted early and tracked by ships, and because it followed the chain of islands nearly all the way between guadeloupe and florida, with radio warnings preceeding it. The first radio report was received on the 10th; the farthest east any such report had ever been sent from. We don't know what kind of warning Guadeloupe had - none of the sources mention anything about it; since it's french-speaking you would expect most of the history to be in french somewhere. I strongly suspect that Guadeloupe did not get the warning, and that's the reason for the catastrophe there. However the island of montserrat (just north of guadeloupe) had some warning; the montserrat reference has some info about this but it's taken from a book so one would have to look at that book to get more info. The USVI likewise had warning, though they were only in the fringe of the storm. The island of puerto rico had days of warning, and that's why there were so few fatalities and not a single ship was lost in the area; the MWR has lots of information with specifics about who knew what when. The bahamas likewise had plenty of warning; not a single person died on the islands (that we know of), and the only fatalities were from one ship in the area that didn't get the warning and was lost at sea. The MWR has an exceprt from a bahamas official to the NWS thanking them for the warning. Florida likewise was warned days ahead of time, and coastal areas were evacutated effectively; only 26 people were killed along the coast despite near-total devastation. Inland preparations are obviously where things fell short, because nobody realized that a lake only a few feet deep could produce a 20-foot storm surge; residents did know of the approach of the hurricane but from what I can tell (not too many sources on this) did not evacuate or anything. — jdorje (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've heard many reports about Puerto Rico and info seems sketchy. Only 300 bodies were accounted for but I've read in several places that thousands were missing and that the island was close to flattened. In Florida they did have good warning, as I said. The reason more people died inland than on the coast was because many of the people on the coast just went inland into the peninsula. They didn't think that the hurricane would send Lake Okeechobee plowing into them. Lacking the urgency and efficient means to get out of the peninsula, 2-3 thousand people died in the when Lake Okeechobee burst its banks and the victims had nowhere to go. That's why modern evacuations of Florida generally require leaving the state. I was just pointing out that there wasn't a helluva lot these people could do. They didn't have half the warning time that we have today and we can get out faster. Most importantly, today, we know if it's strengthening or weakening, what direction it's headed and how fast it's headed there, and just how bad it might be. Back then, they didn't know any of that. They just knew it was out there. The Monthly Weather Review had the advantage of hindsight. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about a graphic showing the Track of the Hurricane

This article was excellent and well deserving of the recent "featured" award;however, I think it could greatly benefit by a map showing the chronological progress of the hurricane. "A picture is worth a thousand words."Hokeman 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is one in the storm history section. It does not show dates however. There is another on commons provided by the NHC...but it also doesn't show dates. — jdorje (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, something like that is what I had in mind, but in the main body of the article with dates and times- about every sixth dot or so along the track. Hokeman 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New NWS page

In case anyone is interested, here's a new NWS page on this hurricane. Hurricanehink 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not new. It's where all the pictures come from. — jdorje (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, just checking cause I saw the page. Hurricanehink 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High importance

The hurricane killed over 4,000 people, so why is it not high importance? Hurricanehink (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I was half-asleep :P On a serious note I assigned an initial rating to every storm, I'm probably a little off on some of them.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, no problem. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/2/Talk%7E1928_Okeechobee_Hurricane_0435.html"