Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
As at 2 PM Pacific time, here’s the current position of Sandy and the projected path.
SOURCE: National Data Buoy Center
I had said a couple of days ago, when Sandy was a hurricane, that it would not be a hurricane when it hit the coast. How did that go?
Well, as of the time that this location and projection of the path was done, the NDBC has shown all the nearest stations. Not one of the actual observations is showing sustained winds over 50 knots, and that’s a long ways from the 72 63 knots that marks a hurricane.
Please note that the big damage from such storms is the flooding, so I am not minimizing the likely extent of the damage. It will be widespread. However … not a hurricane.
w.
Addition by Anthony:
Harold Ambler has a photo of storm surge in Rhode Island here
Flooding in the subway in Newark, NJ (via FirstHand Weather on Facebook)
James said:
“Willis deserves some criticism here. His analysis to declare this “not a hurricane” just so he could write an “I told you so” article is laughable. Wind gusts of over 70-80 MPH were reported inland from 5-9pm ET last night. It’s reasonable to assume there were sustained hurricane force winds over ocean at that time. Just because 2 buoys at one single point in time did not report hurricane force winds does not mean that this was not a hurricane. Heck, this buoy near New York Harbor buoy was reporting SUSTAINED winds of around 50 kts from 5pm to 9pm.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=robn4
If it was not a hurricane at landfall, it was really, really close to hurricane strength. Why write a post to split hairs, especially one with such a shoddy analysis? It just makes WUWT look bad after what looks like one of the most expensive natural disasters occurred in the US.”
I see that Willis responded to that, but I’d like to note that there have been a lot of speculations but very few facts. So here are some, gleaned from the NWS site, and their XML records of hourly observations for 2 days. They are the maximum of sustained winds and gusts during the height of the storm.
Wind Gust Place
53 79 Kennedy airport
38 52 Atlantic City airport
30 58 NY Central Park
36 47 Hartford airport CT
25 48 Ft Meade/Tipton MD
Only one of those places even recorded sustained tropical force winds (>40mph), and that was Kennedy, which is very exposed. Admittedly, I haven’t covered all possible stations. But the Atlantic City data are telling, as that is supposedly near the ingress of the storm. So, whether before or after official landfall, there were no sustained hurricane winds over land, and Willis has spoken to the buoy data separately.
The rainfall totals at most of those sites were modest too, Tipton had zilch, but the exception, Atlantic City, had 3 inches.
I describe this storm as “big surge, moderate winds”, and I am very sorry for the trouble that those good ‘ol New Yorkers are going through from the massive surge.
Rich.
Exactly! I wrote the same post earlier which was snipped.
Last I saw 30 people had died (death toll now 39), 6+million were without power, damages were expected to be in the many billions, storm surges were far far above records. By all measures this was exactly what it was projected to be – a very likely once in a lifetime superstorm.
I watched closely and it saw it noted most of the week that it would cease to become a true hurricane at or near landfall. Which is exactly what occurred – midday yesterday it was downgraded and hurricane status was dropped. .Yet most of the characteristics of the storm were still very hurricane-like including a 940mb or less central core pressure – comparable to a Cat 3,
Willis writing a told you so post – which in my opinion said nothing useful whatsoever, especially considering people were in harms way, was simply wrong and does not stand up to the standards I expect here at WUWT.
The same goes for the many people attempting to minimize the severity of this storm. As near as I can tell Hurricane Isaac’s death toll was 7 and its damage toll at one point was estimated at appx $2 billion. Sandy’s death toll is now reportedly 39 and growing and is reported to be in excess of $25 billion in damages.
Sandy was predicted to – and did – score a pretty much direct hit on one of the most heavily populated areas of the US, and an area with significant flooding danger. The storm surge broke records by a large margin as forecast.
This was – as hyped – an extremely dangerous and serious superstorm. It behaved as far as I can see almost exactly as predicted – and yet we still have 39 deaths, huge damage, and millions without power. This storm was so large and significant it has largely shut down the Eastern seaboard and in many ways has shut down much of the country.
The media always has and always will hype disaster. But in doing so here they also saved many lives. I can only imagine the impact had they adopted the – its just another Noreaster – nothing to worry about attitude displayed by some here. What would have been the impact on deaths and injuries had they done just that.
How anyone can minimize the impact of this storm is simply beyond me – – but starting with Willis and his told you so, and on to a number of others that is exactly what is occuring here.
Willis – you did not tell me anything I didn’t know already – as noted it was always forecast that this storm would lose hurricane status when it made the warm to cold core shift, predicted to be as it approached landfall. As I an others have noted this was still a serious and extremely strong storm – with many hurricane characteristics as it made landfall – regardless of what it was called. Your comments in my opinion do a strong disservice to WUWT and its readership.
This storm WAS exactly what it was described as – a hurricane – until almost the very end.
And as I and others have noted, the characteristics even at landfall had many characteristics of a hurricane even then. It has done far more damage than Hurricane Isaac – in deaths and destruction both.
This was an extremely dangerous storm on a direct collision course with the most highly populated parts of our country. Even WITH the hyped coverage there are still 39 deaths and climbing.
The media reported it would be a record breaking superstorm with extensive, widespread, significant damage – and it was. It had recordbreaking storm surge, extreme low pressures, and massive size.
It had sustained 50-60 mph winds over a large area – and I read several reports that winds aloft were much higher with this storm and were a significant concern when those winds reached the many tall structures on the coasts.
In my opinion you put your agenda ahead of the facts here – and it came off as a boorish “told you so” – which even if true – was grossly inappropriate when people were in harms way. While the media DOES over-hype stuff like this, and did to some smaller extent here, in this case their reporting was largely accurate and any over-hyping – in this case – probably helped save lives.
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says October 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm:
>There’s a story in SciAm about Sandy being the biggest storm ever.
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sandy-vs-katrina-and-irene
> What is their criteria? Seems a bit suspect to talk about storm diameter
> when the storm seems to have ingested the Frankenbaby. The seaward
> expression of Sandy seems, well, meh…just a mundane deteriorating storm.
> They talk about the lowest barometric pressure EVER, whereas other
> sources say it ties the New England Clipper of 1938. Again, the largest
> diameter storm [since imagery could determine that].
I have some doubts of tropical storm wind field exceeding that of the late
October 1991 “Perfect Storm”, or the March 1993 “Storm of the Century”,
or the January ~25th 1978 storm in eastern and midwest USA. And certainly
little over half that of the “frankenfreaky” Typhoon Tip of 1979 – freaky huge
for a tropical cyclone.
It was noted above but here you go Willis – type “Sandy loses hurricane status” in Google and see your claims debunked. Both the various weather services AND the national media across the country, accurately reported the downgrading of Sandy prior to landfall … and for the weather service it was predicted days ago.
I like some of your work, even when controversial, but there simply was no reason for this post, not to mention it is an incorrect assertion.
It’s the main item of news here in England, and our thoughts are with our cousins in and around New York.
On our main TV news last night we were treated to this gem from the main news reporter (an English woman, I hasten to add).:
“This unprecedented storm is a once-in-a-generation event”.
FWIW, a friend sends this:
/Mr Lynn
A. Scott says:
October 30, 2012 at 12:45 pm
It was a hurricane just not when it reached the coast, these are the facts without your spin. It was no worse than many before, but spin is always added when it reaches a high populated area. In this sense it is very bad for the population in the region, but nothing unusual apart from the track it is currently going. Although hurricanes in the past have made this track before.
•Force 10 — Storm conditions, damage to freestanding buildings and trees uprooted would indicate a 55-63 mph or a Storm Wind Condition when measuring wind speed.
•Force 11 — Widespread damage to structures, uprooted trees and flooding of waters from storm surge breaching barriers would indicate a 64-72 mph or a Violent Storm Wind Condition when measuring wind speed.
“It had sustained 50-60 mph winds over a large area”
That is not a hurricane, it is between force 10 and force 11 depending on how the regions fit in that range.
Theo Goodwin says, October 29, 2012 at 7:40 pm,in part:
“After hyping this storm as if it were Katrina, everyone associated with weather
in the MSM should resign. The MSM needs to get a life.”
Except, MSM at-worst “hyped-up” this storm as an especially large Cat-1.
There is not much argument that Katrina was an especially bad and especially
large-size Cat-3 hurricane at landfall, and even when it halfway destroyed New
Orleans. Katrina was the worst Cat-3 hurricane to hit USA, in large part due
to large size. (Little over half as large as current record-holder Typhoon Tip
of 1979).
I am seeing no signs that “the MSM” considered any contest between
Sandy and Katrina.
Also, I am not even seeing “the MSM” comparing Sandy to Ike of 2008 –
arguably the worst Cat-2 hurricane in USA history due to large wind field,
arguably record-large Cat-2 wind field, and resulting wide stretch of damage
and lots of places getting several hours of Cat-2 winds, with some of the
damage more typical of Cat-3.
Ike was no Katrina, and Sandy was no Ike. And “The MSM” did not claim
otherwise.
A. Scott said “It had sustained 50-60 mph winds over a large area”. If you look at my posting, which gave maximum recordings from the NWS for 5 locations from Maryland to Connecticut, that claim is very doubtful. Only Kennedy, which saw 58mph sustained, exceeded 40mph (excluding gusts). 40mph is Beaufort Gale Force 8, to which we are well accustomed in the British Isles. But even with severe depressions in the North Sea, I don’t think we’ve ever (for some suitable value of “ever”) seen a storm surge like Sandy’s at New York.
So A. Scott’s statement is just the sort of hype that Willis and others are trying to push back, in the best possible taste of course since the winds and surge still caused disproportionate damage.
Rich.
OK, there is one other thing, and I’m not sure that Willis has mentioned this. Given the recorded wind speeds on land an at buoys near the coast, the discrepancy between those readings and what the NHC claim in their advisories and discussions, usually based on aircraft passes and radar, must make one highly dubious of the NHC’s accuracy.
In turn, that makes one wonder how many of the NHC recorded hurricanes actually are, if they were measured at 30 feet above the waves at the eyewall. And thence to doubt the Categories assigned to those hurricanes…
Rich.
Ric Werme says:
October 30, 2012 at 6:08 am
Thanks for the opportunity to recall Camille again. The situation there was a little different. There were two ocean going freighters that were anchored some few miles out to sea when the storm hit. After the storm, one was within a hundred yards of the beach highway and the other was about two hundred yards farther out. They were about a mile from water deep enough to float them. Both were turned into scrap metal.
Day By Day says in part: October 29, 2012 at 8:29 pm:
>okerguy, I like hearing that this is a “normal” big honking storm that will
>cause normal and predicatble damage as has been the case forever and
>certainly nothing new. I enjoy these types of posts for my sanity.
How ’bout my favorite jokes about American weather?
Q1: What is “Normal American Weather”?
A1: Do just enough to lull Americans into thinking there is such as “normal
American weather.”
Q2: What parts of America get wierd American weather?
A2: Mostly, the parts of America (with nearby parts of Canada) that are
east of the Pacific Ocean. (It gets even worse towards central/northern
USA Great Plains and nearby parts of the Midwest [likely to Indiana] and
to nearby parts of Canada.
Q3: What are the “Temperate Zones”?
A1: That is 2 extrartropical zones where the weather is “temperant”.
I like to say that “temperant” has the same meaning as “intemperant”,
comparing “flammable” to “inflammable”.
As I like to say, “weather has a temper”, especially in the latitude
zones named after weather “having a temper”.
I consider these as good descriptions of weather in the “Temperate Zones”,
especially the northern one.
After participating in this forum, I have no idea what the phrase “storm surge” means. I had thought that it meant that the water level in New York harbor would rise by thirteen feet and hold that level for some time. I say “hold it for some time” because it is a tidal surge, right?
Did it happen? Did the water level in New York harbor rise thirteen feet and stay at that level for some time, behaving as a tidal surge?
Rain of Terror (Revisited)
By Mark Steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331991/rain-terror-revisited-mark-steyn
superstorm
The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstorm
Theo,
Storm surge generally refers to the rise in water level during a low pressure system, typically a tropical storm type system, due to the winds ‘piling up water’ inward toward the shore, as well as the low pressure gradient pulling water up (to a small extent). This is often exacerbated by ‘cone’ shaped areas like Long Island Sound, where water can be funneled up into a small area, as well as continental shelf attributes. A steep shelf will produce (typically) lower surges than a long shallow shelf will.
The surge is additive to any tidal activity, and as such, media specifying a ’14 foot storm surge’ is really somewhat inaccurate, as the surge is any tide level ABOVE the normal astronomical tide. Yes, the levels at Battery Park were somewhere around the 13.5′-13,8 level or thereabouts, which blew out the previous record by a foot and a half or so (depending on the source of the previous record), but the attributable ‘storm surge’ was somewhat less than that.
I think the expected high tide at Battery was something like 4′, but it peaked at just under 14 feet, so you’d have a 10 foot +/-, storm surge surge. IMO NYC is luckily the storm came in so early as the peak of the storm hit more or less near low tide. It could have been much worse IMO. For reference Katrina had something like a 30′ surge if I recall correctly. This was nowhere near as bad as it could have been if the storm hadn’t had half of its convective activity torn off by the jet stream and tossed off toward Spain 😉
It was pretty amazing to see how fast it came up, at times — for a bit it was coming in about a foot every 30 mins. You can see the levels, and projected levels here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=20121028&edate=20121030&datum=6&unit=1&shift=g&stn=8518750+The+Battery%2C+NY&type=Tide+Data&format=View+Data
For additional reading, see here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/
Theo,
Storm surge generally refers to the rise in water level during a low pressure system, typically a tropical storm type system, due to the winds ‘piling up water’ inward toward the shore, as well as the low pressure gradient pulling water up (to a small extent). This is often exacerbated by ‘cone’ shaped areas like Long Island Sound, where water can be funneled up into a small area, as well as continental shelf attributes. A steep shelf will produce (typically) lower surges than a long shallow shelf will.
The surge is additive to any tidal activity, and as such, media specifying a ’14 foot storm surge’ is really somewhat inaccurate, as the surge is any tide level ABOVE the normal astronomical tide. Yes, the levels at Battery Park were somewhere around the 13.5′-13,8 level or thereabouts, which blew out the previous record by a foot and a half or so (depending on the source of the previous record), but the attributable ‘storm surge’ was somewhat less than that.
I think the expected high tide at Battery was something like 4′, but it peaked at just under 14 feet, so you’d have a 10 foot +/-, storm surge surge. IMO NYC is luckily the storm came in so early as the peak of the storm hit more or less near low tide. It could have been much worse IMO. For reference Katrina had something like a 30′ surge if I recall correctly. This was nowhere near as bad as it could have been if the storm hadn’t had half of its convective activity torn off by the jet stream and tossed off toward Spain 😉
It was pretty amazing to see how fast it came up, at times — for a bit it was coming in about a foot every 30 mins. You can see the levels, and projected levels here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=20121028&edate=20121030&datum=6&unit=1&shift=g&stn=8518750+The+Battery%2C+NY&type=Tide+Data&format=View+Data
For additional reading, see here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/
See – owe to Rich says:
October 30, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“A. Scott said “It had sustained 50-60 mph winds over a large area”. If you look at my posting, which gave maximum recordings from the NWS for 5 locations from Maryland to Connecticut, that claim is very doubtful. Only Kennedy, which saw 58mph sustained, exceeded 40mph (excluding gusts). 40mph is Beaufort Gale Force 8, to which we are well accustomed in the British Isles. But even with severe depressions in the North Sea, I don’t think we’ve ever (for some suitable value of “ever”) seen a storm surge like Sandy’s at New York.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
A combination of a high spring tide and a severe European windstorm caused a storm tide. In combination with a tidal surge of the North Sea the water level locally exceeded 5.6 metres (18.4 ft) above mean sea level. The flood and waves overwhelmed sea defences and caused extensive flooding. The Netherlands, a country that is partly located below mean sea level and relies heavily on sea defences, was mainly affected, recording 1,836 deaths. Most of these casualties occurred in the southern province of Zeeland. In England, 307 people were killed in the counties of Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. 19 were killed in Scotland. 28 were killed in West Flanders, Belgium.
Sorry for the double post, not sure how that happened.
The North Sea Flood of 1953 occurred during 31st January 1953 and 1st February 1953.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1953/Rrea00119530131.gif
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1953/Rrea00119530201.gif
The charts above show the lows movement down the North sea. Force 10/11 winds blew down the western areas of the North sea.
How any one can downplay the impact of this storm is beyond me. Some posters (e.g Theo)-made the very early call (as people in the path of the storm were still ducking for cover) it was all a MSM beat up. They would have since seen the pictures of the massive damage coming out of NY/ NJ. This was no beat up. It happened as predicted.
MJK
A. Scott says:
October 30, 2012 at 12:31 pm
A. Scott, you desperately need to learn to read. As I said,
I minimized nothing, and I specifically said that I was minimizing nothing, and that the damage would be widespread. Now you come along and make up total fantasy claims to attack me … and you stick your nose up in the air like you have the moral high ground?
Pathetic.
w.
A. Scott says:
October 30, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Thanks, A. Scott. What you seem to not have noticed is that much of the media certainly did not downgrade Sandy from a hurricane. I watched it in real-time, and there were lots and lots and lots and lots of claims about “Hurricane Sandy” long after it made landfall.
w.
mjk says:
October 30, 2012 at 4:58 pm
How you can make accusations like that, without a citation to anyone’s actual words, is beyond me … if you have a beef with what someone said, QUOTE THEIR WORDS EXACTLY. Then they, and I and all the rest of the folks reading, will know exactly who and what you are talking about.
Because as it stands, I don’t have a clue who it is that you think is “downplay[ing] the impact of this storm”. I said that the damage would be widespread. I also said that the mainstream media would hype the event.
As it unfolded, I’d say that the media did a better job than they did last year with Tropical Storm Irene. However, by focusing on the “hurricane” aspect, people are led to expect wind damage. But tropical cyclones (hurricanes) do most of their damage, not with wind, but with the torrential rains that accompany the storm. And that is true whether it is a hurricane or just a huge tropical storm. So I felt that the media did an OK job, but they still were talking about wind when they should have been warning about rain.
w.