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)
mjk says:
October 30, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Thanks, mjk. Yes, we are looking at the same thread. All I asked was that you identify who you were talking about. Now, I see from your response that you weren’t talking to me, so I’ll let others answer. See how easy it is when I know what you are talking about?
w.
A Scott , it’s obvious that you do not like observed data. It was a big storm but was hyped up the Yazoo. So was IRENE. IRENE hype killed 50 people in Sandy? Your call. When you can’t believe the NHC, who can you believe?
Sergeant Joe Friday says: Just the facts, mamm, just the facts.
A. Scott,
What is your point, it was not a hurricane it was a dangerous storm. Your arguing against someone saying this fact yet when shown these are gusts, spin your way into saying gusts are worse. Stop with this nonsense, we know a severe storm is very dangerous just the wind gusts don’t support a hurricane and neither do the mean winds. The winds on the scale were roughly force 9/10/11 over a wide area which cause dangerous sea surges and mass flooding to regions most prone. This happened worse across Europe in 1953 and that was not a hurricane either. Thousand of people died during this event, with a sea surge up to over 5m high. Nobody is saying it is not a very dangerous storm just that it is not a hurricane. Cat 1 to cat 5 hurricanes are even worse, so thats why people have been questing why is it a super storm? I do see why you or anybody could call it this because a storm doesn’t imply an hurricane and therefore a storm with force 10//11 winds is the worse kind of it’s type without being a hurricane.
Theo Goodwin says:
October 31, 2012 at 11:23 am
Pardon my brain f*art. I meant the Atlantic coast of Florida. The Gulf Coast, “Nature’s bath tub,” is another matter. The area around Tampa has some structures that are barely above sea level.
eyesonu:
First … re: whats going on is the station reports – the readings from:
http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KGED.html
… are HOURLY, not continuous, readings. And I found a number with sustained winds in the mid 20’s and gusts in mid 40’s MPH. It is definitely possible that for some period between the hourly observations
Second, NWS has access to the continuous data. I sincerely doubt that the NWS would purposely and intentionally lie about things like wind speeds in official government reports – regardless of the fact the data is all there and can be checked.
LAST and most importantly – if you read the advisory you posted and the statement you are comparing to closely you would find the NWS made clear the data for those two stations they commented on was from WEATHERFLOW stations – not the simple NWS stations you are trying to compare against.
http://www.weatherflow.com/datascope-open-for-tropical-cyclone-sandy/
And as Weatherflow has graciously opened their premium paid product to the public for the Hurricane Sandy event you can go directly to their hi-rez Lewes DE data and find that max sustained speed were a bit above 50 and max gusts almost 70mph – exactly as reported by the NWS.
And the Tuckerton Weatherflow station shows max sustained of 65 and peak gusts of 90mph.
You simply did not understand what you were claiming, and were comparing two different products
A. Scott says:
October 31, 2012 at 11:57 am
“Theo: All the wind measurements that you pulled in are for gust speed.
So what? A gust is as or more damaging than a sustained wind. 50 people are dead and $50 billion in damages – both climbing.”
Gusts at 75 to 80 mph, which is what you show, are typical of a tropical storm with sustained winds of 65 mph. Sustained winds cause 99% of damages.
Please stop citing body count and damage costs when the topic is the physical characteristics of the storm itself. You are jumping from apples to oranges to coconuts. I am interested in the physical phenomenon that was the storm, not in the damages that it caused.
And a quick check of several of their other premium stations along the coast show sustained speeds well into the 60’s and peaks from 70-90mph – at and after landfall.
[snip – this is NOT your blog, enforcement is not your sandbox, and I don’t like you making threats to other posters – stop it. – Anthony]
Anthony,
Sorry, it was just a post. I withdraw from all discussion with regards to ” Sandy”. 😉
You have made it quite clear you do not care about the damage or loss of life – only in defending your silly, and proven false, claims about whether it was an actual “hurricane” or not.
The families of those dead and injured, and the others dealing with billions in damages could not care less about your concerns.
I’ve proven you wrong at every point – with documented, sourced, data. You have provided zero data or support for your positions and claims.
I’m done – call it whatever the heck you want – the direct FACTS are it was a massive, record breaking storm that caused historic and large scale damage and loss of life. The damage and loss of life dramatically exceeds that of Isaac earlier this year that was most certainly a full fledged and powerful hurricane.
The media LARGELY reported this storm accurately. It was a hurricane for a considerable period of its life. They accurately noted the likely strength and severity all along. They accurately reported it would lose hurricane status as it approached landfall and they again reported correctly when it did just that, despite that the NWS direct observations and plenty of other data showed it still maintained hurricane force winds – both gusts and sustained – well after landfall.
Con Ed has stated they prepared for the worst – and it was far worse yet.
You go ahead and argue the silly semantics all you want – it won’t bring those who died back, nor roll back the clock on the $50 billion in damages.
.
A. Scott says:
October 30, 2012 at 6:54 pm
OK, thanks, your opinion is noted. I find it hard to understand, since I specifically said in the head post that I was not minimizing the storm and the damage that it would (and in the event did) do. I’m a blue-water sailor. When one storm covers the whole East Coast, that’s a dangerous storm.
No, this post was not to “say [I was] right”. I was right, but the point was the unending hype of the media, which turns any storm into the hurricane of the century and any lack of rain into some huge drought. Yes, this was a big storm, a huge storm, and as I said in my post, “I am not minimizing the extent of the damage”. But it was not a hurricane.
To their credit, as you point out, the NWS call downgrading it to a tropical storm was reported by some of the media. Overall, a\ better job was done than on last year’s Irene.
Part of the problem for me is that when the media hypes a storm as a hurricane, people think about wind. They shouldn’t be warning about the wind, they should be warning about the rain.
There is a difference between “hurricane force winds” and a hurricane. You can have hurricane force winds without having a hurricane. They are called “gusts”. Certainly, they are dangerous, sometimes even lethal … but gusts alone do not a hurricane make.
Look, A. Scott, I’m sorry you (and others) think I was minimizing the storm. I thought I had covered that by explicitly stating that I was NOT minimizing the storm … but obviously that wasn’t clear enough. It certainly was not my intention to minimize anything.
w.
James says:
October 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Thanks, James. I was looking at the question of the strength of the storm at landfall. For that we need to know the winds blowing at the coast as the storm approaches, particularly in the dangerous quadrant. The buoy system is one of the best and most comprehensive systems for looking at coastal winds. None of the dozens and dozens of buoys in the area recorded hurricane force winds. Not one, as far as I know, including those in the dangerous quadrant. Gotta go with the data …
And in the event, the NWS agreed with my analysis, downgrading Sandy to a tropical storm before it made landfall.
So my analysis might have been “sloppy and naive” as you claim … but in the event, it was also right.
Regards,
w.
Ric Werme says:
October 30, 2012 at 11:34 pm
So if I don’t post on your schedule, I’m posting and running? Patently false. I’m here. I also have a day job, a host of other responsibilities, and many interests. So please, cut me some slack. I spent yesterday out on the water instead of behind a keyboard, so sue me.
If you have a scientific beef with my thoughts and analysis, spell it out.
w.
A. Scott says:
October 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm
“You have made it quite clear you do not care about the damage or loss of life – only in defending your silly, and proven false, claims about whether it was an actual “hurricane” or not.”
Aha! You now realize that you are not discussing what we are discussing! Great! If you had read carefully you could have saved yourself a great deal of time.
Those who do analysis of claims about weather systems, climate, and similar scientific matters are doing immensely important work. They should make no apologies for not taking up other topics that are of greater interest to others.
Someone upthread was asking about the storm surge. Here’s a graph from the tide station at The Battery in NY City, showing predicted tide, actual tide, and the difference (storm surge):
SOURCE: NOAA Tides and Currents
Note that the values on the left axis are the difference from Mean Higher High Water (MHHW). The actual storm surge was about 9 feet at The Battery. It was the highest of anywhere I’ve looked (check the link for more tide gauge locations). Most places had a storm surge of 4 to 6 feet, still dangerous. It’s a question of coastal geometry. The Battery is at the tip of a natural funnel, an inlet in the coast where the waters pile up.
w.
Willis – thanks for the reasoned reply … as I’ve spent a lot of time the last couple days researching to respond to this I’ve ended up with I think a pretty good understanding of the media response and the data.
I understand the technical description of a hurricane is wind based – on max sustained winds – but in the case of this storm, and in the eyes of a growing number – the current wind based measurements are not necessarily a good measure of a storms danger. Its pressure was characteristic of a CAT 3 hurricane, and its mass/size was close to unprecedented. Isaac was about the rain as it all but stalled, and winds were not a huge issue.
After my research and with benefit of hindsight – I still disagree with you – for this storm I believe the media in very large part accurately reported the storm. Very early reports may have been somewhat over-hyped – bit neither Frankenstorm or SuperStorm proved inaccurate.
The media was largely accurate in describing why it was a “Frankenstorm” – telling us a lot of useful and interesting info on its “hybrid” status. They were also very good IMO at getting the word out days early that it would lose its hurricane status when it reached colder waters, but warned and informed that would NOT necessarily be because of a change in strength – rather it is largely semantics between tropical and non tropical – warm vs cold core – storms. Letting people know it would still be a very dangerous and potentially deadly storm.
To me that education was extremely valuable in preventing more loss of life. Making sure people realized NOT to assume it was safe when they heard it lost hurricane status.
The media AND the NWS continued to work very hard to make sure people knew just how dangerous and huge this storm was even without hurricane status. As Anthony noted the NWS warnings were pretty much unprecedented, all but begging people to treat this storm very seriously.
As I researched this the last day or so its become clear this could IMO have been called a hurricane well past landfall. There is plenty of evidence of sustained winds in the 60’s. The record storm surge was accurately reported and every bit as devastating as expected.
You can argue wind gusts are not a measure of hurricane strength but I disagree. You will pretty much never see 70 to 90mph gusts if your sustained base speeds are in the 20’s and 30’s. A review of data from many of the hi rez stations clearly confirms this – max sustained speeds typically track about 20-25mph lower than peak gusts. Regardless – from a damage standpoint gusts in the 70-90mph range are dangerous no matter how you call it.
In the end the reporting on this storm was, with a few exceptions, largely accurate. It informed people of the danger and educated them on why. It made sure people knew what to expect – IMO extremely important considering this was a “hybrid” storm, that people don’t know as much about.
Absent the increased coverage too many people would have written this off as just a strong N’oreaster, which notwithstanding the unsupported claims from some here, it most certainly was not. Con Ed said the prepared for the worst – and it was far worse than that. That should tell all of us something.
On the whole I believe the NWS and the media largely got this one right. And if ever there were a storm to be overly cautious with, this storm was IMO the one.
Willis: “I was looking at the question of the strength of the storm at landfall. For that we need to know the winds blowing at the coast as the storm approaches, particularly in the dangerous quadrant. The buoy system is one of the best and most comprehensive systems for looking at coastal winds. None of the dozens and dozens of buoys in the area recorded hurricane force winds. Not one, as far as I know, including those in the dangerous quadrant. Gotta go with the data …”
This is incorrect. As the NWS Storm Report I linked above shows there were many gusts in the 70-90mph range after landfall. As I noted above you don’t get that kind of gusts without a sustained speed in the 50-60+mph range.
But more importantly I suggest you visit the Weatherflow site links I listed. Their private, high quality reporting stations most certainly did show hurricane force sustained winds as I noted above – both upon and in some areas well after landfall.
Weatherflow apparently is used by NWS. Regardless it is a really interesting network of high quality private stations.
A. Scott says:
October 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Oh, please, stop with the pearl-clutching and being all offended at what you fantasize about me. I am none of the things you claim, I’m not some uncaring monster unconcerned about the loss of life, that’s all you.
w.
PS—Since the NWS came to the same conclusion I came to, and downgraded Sandy to a tropical storm before it hit the coast, just as I had said, how is my claim “proven false”? If you believe the NWS, my claim (which I made two days before landfall) is proven true.
For me, science is all about testable predictions. I predicted on the 27th that Sandy would not be a hurricane at landfall. According to the NWS, I was right. If I had been wrong, lots of folks would have been very happy to publicly point that out.
“Roger Knights says:
October 31, 2012 at 11:15 am
If you’re implying that my suggestions have been addressed here previously, you’re wrong.”
– I implied nothing. My comments referred only to the quoted post.
“a sump pump could pump it into a hose and out a first-floor window”
– So your definition of “flood-proof” assumes the first floor window will not be under-water. It also (presumably) assumes an uninterruptible power supply for the pump.
“wooden buildings don’t float when flooded, unless swept off their foundations by running water or powerful waves.”
– No, wooden buildings don’t float because they are not air-tight. Once the building collapses, however, the wooden components will float quite easily. That was not my meaning, however. Hydrostatic pressure is constantly working on any building with a basement, trying to level the water-table by either forcing itself into the basement, or lifting the basement like a boat. The more water-tight the structure, the greater the lifting pressure. One presumes that a “flood-proof” structure will be water-tight above ground as well as below, and a flood will only increase the lifting pressure. Water pressure DOES lift concrete. The reason that concrete buildings don’t float is that the concrete cracks during the process, and the structure is no longer water-tight (and therefore no longer “flood-proof”).
“The fallacy of unobtainable perfection is committed when lack of perfection is urged as a basis for rejection, even though none of the alternatives [‘including making no change at all’ he adds later] is perfect either.”
– No, my rejection of your ideas are that the presumed benefit will be unlikely to offset the cost. (I could quote Plato’s ideas about assumptions, but I won’t bother.)
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 31, 2012 at 2:18 pm
It’s a bit pedantic, but in the day or so before landfall, there were no hurricane or tropical storm warnings posted on land. There were some posted for offshore areas, and the hurricane warning stayed up through landfall, IIRC. The NHC was predicting that the storm would be extratropical (or postropical, whatever that is) by landfall. I don’t believe they downgraded it to tropical storm status between hurricane and posttropical.
All in all, it really doesn’t matter much, as parameters like tides, breadth, topography, land use, and population are all important factors in determining storm severity in addition to the “all important” wind speed and “no so important these days” core pressure.
Willis writes:
“It’s a question of coastal geometry. The Battery is at the tip of a natural funnel, an inlet in the coast where the waters pile up.”
Thanks. Glad to have my idea confirmed.
Willis – that comment was directed at Theo – NOT you …
You and many others predicted the storm would lose its hurricane status before landfall as much s several days before. It wasn’t even much of a prediction – it was a fact – that once it went extra tropical … transitioned from a tropical warm to an extra tropical cold core … it would no longer be considered a hurricane. Which is exactly what happened – and was reported by the majority of media.
I heard many times that regardless of whether it still met hurricane standards it would not be called a hurricane after its cold core transition. I think this is extremely confusing and dangerous – and think the NWS/NHC and the media did a good job of making sure people were educated and aware of this unusual situation. This is something I think needs to be addressed for the future.
And as I’ve noted – the NWS and NHC advisories continued to report observations (not forecasts) of 75mph sustained winds even at landfall – and the Weatherflow station data does provide support for that – that not only were there gusts up to the 90mph, but that sustained winds were well into the 60’s mph range before, at and after landfall. There is plenty of evidence that wind speeds were there that would have supported calling it a hurricane if one desired even at and after landfall. That however would have confused people even more, after they;d been told it would not be called a hurricane once it transitioned to the cold core.
A. Scott says:
October 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm
——————————————————————————————————————
“You have made it quite clear you do not care about the damage or loss of life – only in defending your silly, and proven false, claims about whether it was an actual “hurricane” or not.”
“The families of those dead and injured, and the others dealing with billions in damages could not care less about your concerns.”
———————————————————————————————————————
What has this go to do with whether it is a hurricane or not?
———————————————————————————————————————–
“I’ve proven you wrong at every point – with documented, sourced, data. You have provided zero data or support for your positions and claims.”
————————————————————————————————————————-
I have used the same data and it shows no hurricane once reached landfall, gusts between 70 and 90+ mph are not high enough for a cat 1 hurricane. Sustained winds 60+ mph are from storm force 10/11.
———————————————————————————————————————
I’m done – call it whatever the heck you want – the direct FACTS are it was a massive, record breaking storm that caused historic and large scale damage and loss of life. The damage and loss of life dramatically exceeds that of Isaac earlier this year that was most certainly a full fledged and powerful hurricane.
———————————————————————————————————————
Not surprised you’ve done your spin is getting you no-where. Nobody likes to see severe storms that are life threatening. It was only because it hit a highly populated region.
————————————————————————————————————————
The media LARGELY reported this storm accurately. It was a hurricane for a considerable period of its life. They accurately noted the likely strength and severity all along. They accurately reported it would lose hurricane status as it approached landfall and they again reported correctly when it did just that, despite that the NWS direct observations and plenty of other data showed it still maintained hurricane force winds – both gusts and sustained – well after landfall.
————————————————————————————————————————
It did lose it’s hurricane status until it reached landfall so why are you arguing with me?
None of the sustained wind observations show values above 73 mph and hurricane force gusts above 73 mph do not determine an hurricane.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Con Ed has stated they prepared for the worst – and it was far worse yet.
—————————————————————————————————————–
It has been the worse to hit the New York area for a long time.
———————————————————————————————————————
You go ahead and argue the silly semantics all you want – it won’t bring those who died back, nor roll back the clock on the $50 billion in damages.
———————————————————————————————————————
Again this has nothing to do whether it was a hurricane or not when it reached landfall, This is about being scientifically correct and finding out the true information. NOAA will do the same thing and give its status and track once all the information has been put together. So because people died we should forget about the science part and not record what it was? Science helps greater understanding in preparing for future events that prevent further loss of life.
I will remind you that New York is not alone despite these terrible events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
Now that is about the funniest thing I’ve ever heard – me a “liberal” – LMAO … I am as conservative as they come. I am however a realist – call them as I see (and can support) them. I don’t take sides – I base my positions and claims on reproducible, supportable facts.
No – I like the observed data just fine.
However I take the time to make sure of what I am observing and then research to find the data noted and actually look at it.
In your case you failed to note the NWS clearly stated the data they referred to was from the WEATHERFLOW system, not from the NWS stations you cited. And when I visited the private subscription only WEATHERFLOW system and looked at the station data for Sandy they have graciously made freely available it matched the NWS statements you were challenging. You attacked without understanding what you were claiming, and as a result your claims were wrong. The NWS and NHC accurately reported, contrary to your insinuation otherwise.
The Weatherflow data shows you are wrong – both in your challenges towards NWS/NHC and regarding the strength of sustained winds before, at, and after landfall. There were a number of stations reporting hurricane force winds prior to, and after landfall … and Weatherflow also shows that sustained winds directly track gusts – if you have 70-90mph gusts you will have sustained winds in the 50’s and 60’s.
I encourage you to visit Weatherflow and look at the data – they do a great job.
A compilation of the various links to supporting data I have posted in this thread:
http://blog.weathernationtv.com/wp-content/uploads/10.30.12-wind-gusts.jpg
http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/10_29_12_RPM_winds.jpg
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT3+shtml/292058.shtml
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
http://www.weatherflow.com/datascope-open-for-tropical-cyclone-sandy/
Sorry should read,
“It did lose it’s hurricane status when it reached landfall…….”
A. Scott,
Sorry if you were not referring to me, but I wasn’t sure either way.