A Similar Typhoon From 1882

Launceston Examiner Friday 15 December 1882


Respecting the typhoon that passed over the Philippines on October 22, the following meagre particulars are supplied by the Hong Kong daily press :—” The 20th October, 1882, will be chronicled in the annals of Manila as a dia triste. To some cities it would prove, after the rava- ges of the cholera fiend, a crowning misfortune, but, rich in resources, the fair capital of Luzon will illustrate that marvellous resilience in recovering from adversity which places deriving their wealth from Nature’s inexhaustible store- houses always display. The superintendent of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company sends us the following:—The following summary taken from a Manilla newspaper was received on Saturday by telegraph from Bolinao:— Variedades   Theatre destroyed. Tondo theatre ruined. Tobacco Factories Fortin greatly damaged. Foreign merchants’ houses suffered much. Malati in ruins. Eleven vessels on shore at Santa Lucia. Observatory says lowest barometer at 11.40 a. m., 727.60 ; highest velocity wind registered, 144.4 miles an hour. Unable to measure greatest velocity of typhoon as anemometer damaged. In Ermita only house standing is Macleod’s. No house standing between Divisoria and Dulambayan. Sampaloc unroofed. Greatest typhoon since 1831. Wind so strong, lightning rods two yards long were bent double. Pieces of iron roofing so heavy that six or eight men could not lift them blown some distance and rolled like cigars. Damage much greater than great earthquake of 1880.


The wind speeds were almost identical to the current storm

Weather officials said Haiyan had sustained winds of 235 kph (147 mph) with gusts of 275 kph (170 mph) when it made landfall. By those measurements, Haiyan would be comparable to a strong Category 4 hurricane in the U.S., nearly in the top category, a 5.

More than 100 dead in typhoon onslaught in Philippines as storm aims at central Vietnam – The Washington Post

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A Similar Typhoon From 1882

  1. Karl W. Braun says:

    And Manila is on the leeward side of Luzon.

  2. Eli Rabett says:

    You have some serious issues with units here. Well, ok, a lot of news sources do also. The sustained winds were 196 mph or about 315 kph. The gusts were 235 mph or about 390 kph. The 727.60 is in Torr, or about 957 mbar. Haiyun had pressures below 900 mbar. It was a big one.

    • Moron alert :

      “Before the typhoon made landfall, some international forecasters were estimating wind speeds at 195 m.p.h., which would have meant the storm would hit with winds among the strongest recorded. But local forecasters later disputed those estimates. “Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated,” Mr. Paciente said.

      The Philippine weather agency measured winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.”


    • Baa Humbug says:

      Eli hit the return button before finishing his comment, so I’ll finish it for him.

      “It was a big one….but not unusual historically. I can see why Mr Goddard repeatedly slaps down alarmist exaggerators like Wundergrounds Jeff Masters. Keep up the good work Mr Goddard.”

  3. David A says:

    Eli, those are satellite measurements, not reflecting surface wind speeds. The surface measurements of the two storms was almost identical, and in the older event, the recording instrument broke. The Philippines has a long history of similar typhoons. A big one yes, unprecedented and evidence of CAGW, a resounding NO; as global A.C.E. and the number of category three plus hurricanes indicate a twenty year declining trend.

    • Eli Rabett says:

      Eli understands that, but it is clear even now that the atmospheric pressure was very low, much lower than the pressure of the storm referenced by Mr. Goddard. The barometric pressure approached or was lower than the most intense cyclones. I would agree that the sub 860 mbar reading reported once will probably not stand up, but the slightly sub 900 mbar reports look a lot stronger. That alone is a strong indicator that the wind speed probably exceeded 145 mph

      Wind speeds off the rim wall of the storm, will, of course, be lower, so the statement that “winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.” does not by itself say much.

      As to wind speed at the center of the storm during landfall, that will emerge. Everyone has much more to do now dealing with the death and destruction than to go back and analyze the data from the various weather stations. It is a reasonably good guess that any weather station in the bulls eye did not have a wonderful time. This was a very big storm and where it falls in the ranks is yet to be seen, but it was not a run of the mill thing.

      • Modern technology guarantees that minimum pressures and maximum wind speeds will always be more extreme than in historical hurricanes. We now have almost infinite and continuous sampling capabilities in three dimensions, whereas prior to 1950, we relied on data from a few single points.

        Unless that point(s) happened to be right at the extreme location, they would have always missed the maximum wind speeds and minimum central pressure.

        That was one of Jeff Masters’ big mistakes.

        Also, surface winds will always be lower than winds at altitude. Even someone as clueless as Jeff Masters should be aware of that.

  4. Eli Rabett says:

    Btw 900 and 890 looks like it is standing up given readings at the airport some distance from the rimwall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s