described as 20 miles across and elliptical. Also, the two fix positions were fairly close together despite the apparently difficulty in finding the center. Why, then, would the 969 mb pressure be treated as an Please re-evaluate the intensity assuming that the 969 mb is a good “upper bound”? central pressure. The quote about the eye being 20 miles across and elliptical was by radar “determined This means that they might not have been inside the eye when they reported observation.” this. The 969 mb was a dropsonde surface pressure. The dropsonde is believed to have been dropped from a flight-level of 500 mb. Dropsondes in this era had no wind data or position data. How can we be sure that the dropsonde splashed in the eye? I think it is safe to assume that the 969 mb was either the central pressure, or probably close to the central pressure, assuming they were trying to hit the center of the eye with the dropsonde. 969 mb is added as a central pressure at 18Z on the 16th. No changes are made to the revised wind speeds, however a few words have been changed in the metadata summary to reflect this change. 4. The committee concurs with the rest of the proposed changes. Agreed. 1953 Storm #9, Unnamed (now #8): 1. Can it be determined when this system was added to HURDAT and why it was given an intensity of 60 kt? It seems very strange that the hurricane forecasters of this era would ignore a system in the Gulf of Mexico heading for Florida. It is unusual that the forecasters would not be issuing advisories on this system. Perhaps it is because at the same time Edna was occurring and threatening the U.S. East Coast. This system was first added as a tropical storm in the Cry et al. (1959) Technical Memo. Another contemporary climatological account was Tannehill (1956) with seasonal summaries. Tannehill, however, did not include this system. Why Cry decided to include this as a new tropical storm was not discussed in his tech memo and will likely remain a mystery. 2. The microfilm data shows a summary from a recon flight into the system on 15 September. This is included in the metadata summary but not the daily metadata. Please include it there. This has now been included in the daily metadata paragraph for 15 September. 3. The committee concurs with the delayed genesis. Agreed.
described as 20 miles across and elliptical. Also, the two fix positions were fairly close together despite the apparently difficulty in finding the center. Why, then, would the 969 mb pressure be treated as an “upper bound”? Please re-evaluate the intensity assuming that the 969 mb is a good central pressure. The quote about the eye being 20 miles across and elliptical was “determined by radar observation.” This means that they might not have been inside the eye when they reported this. The 969 mb was a dropsonde surface pressure. The dropsonde is believed to have been dropped from a flight-level of 500 mb. Dropsondes in this era had no wind data or position data. How can we be sure that the dropsonde splashed in the eye? I think it is safe to assume that the 969 mb was either the central pressure, or probably close to the central pressure, assuming they were trying to hit the center of the eye with the dropsonde. 969 mb is added as a central pressure at 18Z on the 16th. No changes are made to the revised wind speeds, however a few words have been changed in the metadata summary to reflect this change. 4. The committee concurs with the rest of the proposed changes. Agreed. 1953 Storm #9, Unnamed (now #8): 1. Can it be determined when this system was added to HURDAT and why it was given an intensity of 60 kt? It seems very strange that the hurricane forecasters of this era would ignore a system in the Gulf of Mexico heading for Florida. It is unusual that the forecasters would not be issuing advisories on this system. Perhaps it is because at the same time Edna was occurring and threatening the U.S. East Coast. This system was first added as a tropical storm in the Cry et al. (1959) Technical Memo. Another contemporary climatological account was Tannehill (1956) with seasonal summaries. Tannehill, however, did not include this system. Why Cry decided to include this as a new tropical storm was not discussed in his tech memo and will likely remain a mystery. 2. The microfilm data shows a summary from a recon flight into the system on 15 September. This is included in the metadata summary but not the daily metadata. Please include it there. This has now been included in the daily metadata paragraph for 15 September. 3. The committee concurs with the delayed genesis. Agreed.