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)
Hype? No … I think not … gust from 76 to 94mph – across the region
http://blog.weathernationtv.com/wp-content/uploads/10.30.12-wind-gusts.jpg
“The significant wind field that showed up on previous model runs as Sandy was running ashore. The blue coloring over southern New Jersey would indicate the calm nature of the winds near the “Eye”. Note also the easterly fetch to the winds on the northerly side of the eye, this would indicate a worse case scenario for New York , Long Island and surrounding areas in terms of wind and storm surge.”
Very high winds over a significant area and even evidence of an eye wall:
http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/10_29_12_RPM_winds.jpg
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 30, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Amen! The one thing that the Northeast could do to prevent the main kind of damage caused by tropical storm Sandy, loss of power, is remove all trees that are next to power lines and that are old enough to be knocked down by sustained winds in the 55 mph range with gusts to 65. Also, pass ordinances that sheds and similar items must be “fixed to the ground” so that they are stable in gusts to 65.
NYC needs to find that rare engineer who can design entrances to subway stations that can be closed and withstand flood waters. (Why this has not been done is beyond human understanding.)
Maybe the federal government could help in this endeavor. It would save a lot of money in the long run.
Buddy E says:
October 30, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Thank You for your excellent explanation of “storm surge” and your reference to the tide tables.
Now I believe that a storm surge of ten feet occurred and lasted about two hours. I find it strange that the MSM have published no video of that surge given that there are an abundance of tall buildings to use as platforms. Do you know of any such video?
At 11PM EDT yesterday – well after landfall – the NWS still had hurricane force winds warned and noted:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT3+shtml/292058.shtml
“Theo Goodwin says:
October 30, 2012 at 5:41 pm
NYC needs to find that rare engineer who can design entrances to subway stations that can be closed and withstand flood waters. (Why this has not been done is beyond human understanding.)”
The problem with NYC is not the subway entrances. The original power stations in NYC were designed so that leftover steam could be used to heat nearby buildings, and power lines were run under the streets as well. The subways are a relatively recent addition to the underground city few people ever see. There is simply no way to plug every hole. Like an anthill built next to a river, once the water reaches certain heights, nothing will stop the area underground from flooding.
Willis,
Are we looking at the same thread? You asked meto identify who has downplayed the impact of this storm? Let me name just a few. Theo in numerous posts. Look at post at 6.25 pm as prime example; ggm at 7.00pm; DJ at 7.06 pm; Tom Rude at 7.54 pm. …etc etc.
Mjk
MJK writes:
“mjk says:
October 30, 2012 at 4:58 pm
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.”
Look again at what I wrote:
“Theo Goodwin says:
October 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm
The MSM downgraded it immediately after landfall. Just check CBS or any of the others.
I cannot find a photo or video that looks like a major storm surge. In New York City, all I see are events of water sloshing over seawalls. Wind damage seems all but nonexistent, though one crane happened to collapse. I just do not see the major storm that has been hyped for two days. Sorry, but the MSM are demented. Given the MSM’s propensity for unbridled hype, they should not be allowed to play with computer models.”
To this moment, I still cannot find a photo or, preferably, a video that looks like a major storm surge. I am not impressed by pictures of flooded streets. I am especially not impressed by pictures of cars in flooded multistory parking garages because one does not know where the water came from. Maybe all this is because I lived a long time in central and southern Florida where flooded streets are commonplace. For me, a major storm surge is one that removes all the houses on the beach. There is no photo of a beach highway that has collapsed because all the earth beneath it is missing. That is commonplace in hurricanes that I have experienced. Maybe my standards are a bit high.
I would like for someone to produce photos or, preferably, a video of major wind damage. That would be something like a house or large, expensive hotel that has been peeled apart, layer by layer, by winds. There is no such video because no such thing happened. That kind of damage requires something more than 80 mph winds. However, a category 3 is not required to do it.
I could go on forever about the details. I see many photos of water splashing across little concrete sea walls. In a major hurricane, the sea wall would be missing. I have sat on a Florida beach and calmly watched a first rate commercial pier totally disappear into the waves. Do you have a video of some such thing in NJ or NY?
Finally, my argument is with the MSM. They should not have called Sandy a “Superstorm.” Such terminology should be reserved for a major hurricane. They could have called Sandy a dangerous Category 1 hurricane and I would not have complained. They should have called it a Category 1 hurricane that is unusually extensive and that will become a dangerous tropical storm shortly after landfall. They should have said that the main dangers are from downed trees and flooding. (Downed trees kill people as do the live wires that they sometimes bring down.) They should have warned that millions would likely be without power for two weeks and maybe explained that the wise will get out of town.
Okay, I’ll summarize. This was a major storm and it did major damage. However, it was not the Big One. Post-storm analyses should include this simple fact.
Willis – it is my opinion making a wholly un-necessary post that served no other real purpose than to say “told you so” … while people were at peril, was minimizing the storm.
I believe this post of yours, pretty much solely to say you were right, damages the reputation of WUWT. I have been supportive of some of your other controversial posts because they at least offer interesting discussion value but that was not the case here.
Further, as I’ve shown there most certainly were hurricane force winds continuing after landfall. The NWS 11pm statement above said just that.
Media will always over-hype – it is what they do. That said – it is my strong opinion in this case, that “hype” was beneficial. I think there is a real problem that needs to be addressed with a storm like this, despite its size, energy and level of danger, ceasing to be called a hurricane because it ceases to have a tropical/warm core. I think many people could easily have been confused when the “its not a hurricane any longer” downgrade stories appeared. This had little to do with the force of the storm and almost everything to do with the nature” of the storm – that it was no longer tropical.
Seeing the damage, comparatively high loss of life and the number who still failed to heed warnings I think the media got it right in this case. While standing out in a puddle in the wind and rain for hours is a bit silly, overall they reported what the NWS/NOAA etc were distributing.
This was a “super storm” and was every bit as devastating as any similar hurricane in the area – more so in many ways.
A. Scott says:
October 30, 2012 at 12:31 pm
James says:
October 30, 2012 at 7:07 am
Willis deserves some criticism here. 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.
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.
*****************
A. Scott,
I agree completely with the above. I am a strong skeptic of CAGW and supporter of WUWT, but Willis’ articles have left me stopping by WUWT less and less. His thoughts lack depth and he makes too many mistakes that require later correction. Anthony would do well to employ Willis less often.
Tucker,
I very much enjoy Willis Eschenbach’s articles. You know, if you don’t, you can always skip them.
Tucker, again to be clear, I generally like Willis posts even if I disagree with them. In this case I disagree – for the reasons stated.
Willis — I know that 50 kts is not hurricane force. I also no that there was an east and south side of the storm with no buoy coverage, and there was also enormous gaps in coverage on the other sides of the storm. 50 kts does not mean that there were hurricane force winds, but it does suggest that there was a decent chance that somewhere in the storm there was.
Just looking at a couple buoys and concluding “not a hurricane” is just really sloppy and naive analysis.
Like the post and the photos. Today I posted a photo of the sunshine in Florida on Friday to help lift our spirits. Stay safe.
A. Scott says:
October 30, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“Media will always over-hype – it is what they do. That said – it is my strong opinion in this case, that “hype” was beneficial. I think there is a real problem that needs to be addressed with a storm like this, despite its size, energy and level of danger, ceasing to be called a hurricane because it ceases to have a tropical/warm core. I think many people could easily have been confused when the “its not a hurricane any longer” downgrade stories appeared. This had little to do with the force of the storm and almost everything to do with the nature” of the storm – that it was no longer tropical.”
You are doubling down on the MSM’s mistake. Do you really want the following:
Tropical Storm = Superstorm
Category 1 Hurricane = SuperSuperStorm
Category 2 Hurricane = SuperSuperSuperStorm
Category 3 Hurricane = SuperSuperSuperSuperStorm
Category 4 Hurricane = SuperSuperSuperSuperSuperStorm
Category 5 Hurricane = SuperSuperSuperSuperSuperSuperStorm
What good is that? Hype trivializes everything it touches.
A. Scott continues:
“Seeing the damage, comparatively high loss of life and the number who still failed to heed warnings I think the media got it right in this case. While standing out in a puddle in the wind and rain for hours is a bit silly, overall they reported what the NWS/NOAA etc were distributing.”
So, the media should report that a storm is more or less serious depending on “the number who failed (might fail) to heed warnings?” You really do not care about the actual characteristics of the storm. What you care about is what you perceive as the effectiveness of the warning. Your approach has everyone running from every storm. Your stance is against learning and adapting. If you move to Florida you will want to learn the important differences among the different categories of storms; otherwise, you will find life there intolerable.
You should encourage the MSM to learn and report the actual characteristics of storms. You should encourage citizens to learn the actual characteristics of storms and to adapt to them. What is the value of encouraging the citizenry to remain uninformed and to depend on an MSM that worships hype?
Jeff says:
October 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm
“The problem with NYC is not the subway entrances.”
You need to tell the MSM. I am just repeating their complaint about the subway entrances. If you are correct in the remainder of your post there is no point in improving the entrances because the subways are wet from many other natural sources.
Theo Goodwin – contrary to your claims – which don’t seem to be supported with any data – there is plenty of evidence it was a hurricane offshore and remained a hurricane after landfall.
I presented the evidence above – from NWS … both weather statements and historical observations.
And I don’t give a rats backside about anything but saving lives.
Theo – you pretty clearly seem NOT to have looked at any of my links as to post landfall windspeeds. Willis made the same mistake IMO.
As I suspect a static image will be ignored by you here is the live interactive source:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sgx/kml/lsr.php?cwa=okx&lsr=Marine%20Thunderstorm%20Wind,Non-Thunderstorm%20Wind%20Gust,Thunderstorm%20Wind%20Gust&start=201210290000&end=201210300531
There are widespread readings from 60-90+ mph from Virginia thru New York and up to Rhode Island … this storm was a super storm – and did have hurricane force winds PER THE NWS data – both before and AFTER landfall.
And Theo – as to my “learning about storms” – I have been a trained weather spotter and directly involved in emergency preparedness (civil defense) since I was 16. Please don’t lecture me on identifying severe weather.
A. Scott says:
October 30, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Yeah. That and Willis taking a page from Mosher with a post and run article.
I’ll agree with some of the criticism of “superstorm,” a rather vacuous term. Instead of focusing on the wind speed, the central pressure (typical for cat 3 at landfall) and breadth of the storm (tropical force winds simultaneously at North Carolina and Bermuda is really remarkable.
Even now, while my air pressure is still only 29.48″ Hg, the winds in Toronto were strong enough to break lose a commercial sign the struck and killed a woman walking by. I don’t think of the storm as “super,” but it is pretty incredible!
Theo Goodwin says:
October 30, 2012 at 6:50 pm
…
Here I’ll agree with using “superstorm.” It wasn’t a major hurricane before landfall (cat 3,4,5), it wasn’t even a tropical cyclone. For the national media, “nor’easter” just don’t reach Toronto, so the lame “superstorm” isn’t so bad. I’m not sure what your media talked to, but New Hampshire and Massachusetts media got the spokepersons for the utility companies on the air to ask about preparations (some crews came here from San Diego!) and were things going to be as badly handled as they were for Irene and the October snowstorm last year. The utility companies got a lot of flack for weeklong power outages then.
On TV news, the news directors are the main culprits when it comes to hyping a storm – it’s good for ratings. On WMUR in NH they’re calling it the “Perfect Storm,” which is a tad annoying, I thought that name was “retired” 20 years ago. 🙂 At least that fits on the screen or newspaper headline better than “a Category 1 hurricane that is unusually extensive and that will become a dangerous tropical storm shortly after landfall.” (And not just because it was never forecast to become a dangerous tropical storm, it was forecasted to become a dangerous post-tropical storm.)
And finally, exactly how do you recommend that people who should evacuate learn that perhaps it would be a good idea? While I hate the Steven Schneider style of hyping CAGW, there are a number of people who discovered that perhaps that the risk of losing electricity might suggest they leave while the leaving’s good. Too many people stayed behind in places that were clearly not going to be good places to be during a long-duration storm.
The reason Sandy got so “massive” is that it hit lots of colder air masses that made it pick up or delay loss of speed and increase size/mass?
Hurricanes are made and kept alive by energy/temperature difference between sea and atmosphere, mostly around both sides of equator.
Closer to the poles the storms are mostly made and kept alive by air masses with energy/temperature difference.
This storm ended up being both in the end?
The cold air masses it met was made by global warming?
A. Scott at 6.00pm said “At 11PM EDT yesterday – well after landfall – the NWS still had hurricane force winds warned and noted:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT3+shtml/292058.shtml ”
Sorry, sir, but we do need to distinguish between wind gusts and sustained wind. In the text of that advisory, rather than the (deliberately?) misleading headline, it refers to hurricane force _gusts_.
Second, we should bear in mind that these are statements rather than data. In earlier postings I have shown data as recorded on the ground, of hourly maximum sustained and gust winds. I didn’t see any hurricane gusts after 2200 EDT, but I wasn’t looking everywhere. Here are the data, still available in the 2-day window at http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KJFK.html , from JFK airport, the windiest location I was able to find. The _only_ hurricane gust reading was at 19:51, and presumably that gust occurred some time between 18:51 and 19:51. By 22:51 the highest gust there was 53mph, while the sustained wind was Force 9 Severe Gale 46mph.
29 22:51 S 46 G 53 5.00 Fog/Mist and Windy OVC017 60 56 86% NA NA 28.89 978.4
29 21:51 SE 46 G 58 3.00 Fog/Mist and Windy BKN017 OVC025 60 56 86% NA NA 28.81 975.6
29 20:51 SE 52 G 68 3.00 Light Rain and Windy BKN017 OVC025 60 55 84% NA NA 28.71 972.2
29 19:51 E 53 G 79 3.00 Light Rain and Windy BKN017 OVC025 60 55 64 59 84% NA NA 28.63 969.5 0.01 0.32
29 18:51 E 49 G 72 3.00 Light Rain Fog/Mist and Windy FEW009 OVC012 61 58 90% NA NA 28.54 966.3 0.02
Unfortunately in these sad days, sceptics ask for data rather than statements or opinions or forecasts. There might be some data to support your assertions – so find a friendly NWS guy to trawl through all the data and then get it posted here.
Rich.
Here’s another thread from the Zero Hedge site, this one citing a study from a few years back estimating the cost of a flooding equivalent to the one we’ve just seen at $50 to $100 billion. This is mostly from the indirect economic effects of people not being able to get to work. (Making the case for more telecommuting, IMO.) It also estimates the time needed to get the subways back to 90% operation at three weeks.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-30/sandy-total-loss-estimate-100-billion