Image of Typhoon Tip at its strongest on October 12, 1979, from NOAA.
Image: NOAA
On Oct. 12, 1979, Super Typhoon Tip's central pressure dropped to 870 mb (25.69 inches Hg), the lowest sea-level pressure ever observed on Earth, according to NOAA. Peak wind gusts reached 190 mph (306 kph) while the storm churned over the western Pacific.
Besides having unsurpassed intensity, Super Typhoon Tip is also remembered for its massive size. Tip's diameter of circulation spanned approximately 1,380 miles (2,220 km), setting a record for the largest storm on Earth. The storm's huge diameter was exactly the same as the distance from New York City to Dallas.
A total of 40 U.S. Air Force aircraft reconnaissance missions flew into Typhoon Tip, making it one of the most closely monitored tropical cyclones, according to a post-analysis written by George Dunnavan and John Diercks.
Typhoon Tip slowly weakened before making landfall in southern Japan on Oct. 19, 1979. However, the typhoon was still the most intense to hit Japan's main island of Honshu in more than a decade. Tip claimed the lives of 86 people and injured hundreds of others.
The extreme winds of Tip knocked over a gasoline storage tank, causing an explosion and fire that spread rapidly through a U.S. Marine Corps camp at Mt. Fuji. The Associated Press reported that one person was killed and dozens of others were injured.
Extensive flooding destroyed more than 20,000 homes in Japan, while hundreds of mudslides occurred.
High-rise buildings in Tokyo swayed from the high winds as the typhoon struck.
Image of Typhoon Tip at its strongest on Oct. 12, 1979, from NOAA.
From AccuWeather.com (find the original story here); reprinted with permission.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentMost massive storm ever? Get real, what about all the other storms that have not been recorded with any accuracy, and did not make landfall in a highly developed country? You should try to be more realistic and change the title to the most massive storm in the last 33 years. Or the most massive storm accurately recorded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree. The title here is ridiculous. I was very annoyed when I looked at the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel sad in the way that reporters view themselves. They are trained to use eye-catching headlines to stun the public. This frequently overrides the need for an objective reporting. Even a reputed science website still tends to feel like an entertainment website on celebrities. As a matter of course 33 years is only a nano-blink in the history of planet earth. There are paleontological evidence that at times in the past the climate had been much more violent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read SA since I was a kid more or less continuously, some 35 yrs and I tho I need to pick up a vintage copy to verify it...I remeber a much differnt publication of my youth, at least superficialy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas it some 15 plus yrs ago that SA almost went bankrupt? Especially since/about that time it seemed to have become much more sensational at least in terms headlines and cover. I'm not sure the quality of actual content integrity has been compromised in the printed addition at least. If they need to be sensational with the headlines and graphics to stay viable I'm sort of OK with that as long as it stops there. The online version seems a little 'looser' maybe?
To nit pick--it bothers me slightly; 'diameter exactly distance from X to Y'....how can a hurricane diameter be exactly anything? It's a "soft" edged thing.
Come on you guys, strongest storm ever observed, recorded, reported, and they report "lowest sea level pressure ever observed" as the qualifying characteristic. The fact that the records of the big ones only go back 33 years could make a case for global warming (and I can already hear the deniers getting ready to do their thing). As to its size, yeah, it was HUGE. The reported size matches the distance from New York to Dallas and so they do a simple overlay on the map leaving me to imagine the impact of a storm that big on the U.S. Yeah, storms are "soft" edged things AND the measurement from New York to Dallas depends on what points within those cities you choose... I'd say we have some nit pickers missing the point of the article, to report the most massive storm ever (observed, recorded, reported). What, will the creationists jump on SciAm because Noah's flood isn't listed? As for nano-blinks in the history of the planet, I imagine the asteroid impact storm(s) 65 million years ago qualifies as "massive", and it is "recorded" in the geologic record... but again, we'd be missing the point. The next massive storm will have to break the record that Tip has set.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalm down, people, geezzz... It's a simple story about the largest storm ever recorded. What is so over-dramatic about that? What is so controversial? I really didn't think I would be reading about a storm more devastating than the KT meteor impact, primordial volcanoes, or (laughably) Noah's flood when I read the headline. I WAS surprised to learn that it was a storm that I don't even remember. I WAS surprised to learn that it was as large as the distance from New York to Dallas (way2ec, try Google Earth- Dallas center to NYC center is 1370 miles, 10 less than the "soft" edges of Tip).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I WAS surprised to learn that the largest 17 storms in recorded history were all Pacific Ocean typhoons, and that Katrina is only 36th on that list. [Click the link to the original story.] If you all hate Scientific American so much, why are you wasting your time (and ours) reading it?
The "new" science part is lacking and it's disappointing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all still read it, but the lack of really good articles just isn't there anymore. More like Facebook everyday.
It's understood that headlines are designed to grab attention, and it would be understood immediately by everyone who began reading the article that the meaning of the headline is "ever recorded".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is more dramatic. "Earth's Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever", or "Earth's Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever Recorded"?
Nevertheless, this style of reporting, when the headline dramatisation is extended to the main body of the text, is a useful tool of the media, which I believe has been used extensively in the promotion of Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism.
There must be a large anti-science, ultra right wing, Earth-is-only-5,000-years-old contingency out there monitoring SA, attempting to disqualify it contents by ranting on about how stupid science is, how scientists are a bunch of show-offs and liars. Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're all very dramatic. More than the articles. It's like the commercials after the main show. It keeps me entertained when there's nothing else happening at the time. Why watch "Saturday Night Live" or political debates when you can have this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrin, SA neither came up with the title, "Earth's Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever", nor authored this article. They credited Meghan Evans and AccuWeather.com six times within their reprint, including a link to the original story. So much for SA sensationalism; I guess it's those pesky meteorologists that are the insatiable glory hounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...the lack of really good articles just isn't there anymore." That's a double negative that means there is no lack of "really good articles" in SA. If you can't even comprehend what you wrote, what credence can be given to your opinion on any science writing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's the same routine at the CBC, with the usual suspects trying to paint the public broadcaster as 'leftist', 'biased', or a waste of taxpayer money, based on usually ill-informed misreadings or confusion about the source of the information/text. The first time it might be stupidity, but eventually it becomes obvious that it is agenda-driven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a more massive storm happened and was not recorded by humans, can it be said to have happened at all?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me as I go out into the forest looking for falling trees... ;-)
Fascinating that, despite its strength and power, there was so little damage. Compare it to lesser hurricane's impact on the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNational Enquirer Headline:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Earth's Strongest, Most Massive Storm Ever"
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
It's a shame that so many people are so stuck on themselves that all they can do is complain. I thought the article was fine. I don't remember it and telling me how far it would reach gives me an idea of it's size. You complainers just like to mouth off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisValley, I think you misunderstand. The point people are trying to make to SA is: Hire a copy editor and don't put out totally misleading headlines. This is supposed to be a professional magazine, not a junk rag. The article isn't bad, just the attention drawing, false, headline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this