Guest post by David Middleton
Funny thing… Hurricane Sandy’s unprecedented storm surge was likely surpassed in the New England hurricanes of 1635 and 1638. From 1635 through 1954, New England was hit by at least five hurricanes producing greater than 3 m storm surges in New England. Analysis of sediment cores led to the conclusion “that at least seven hurricanes of intensity sufficient to produce storm surge capable of overtopping the barrier beach (>3 m) at Succotash Marsh have made landfall in southern New England in the past 700 yr.” All seven of those storms occurred prior to 1960.
Even funnier thing… The 1635 and 1638 hurricanes occurred before Al Gore invented global warming…
Even more funny thing… The 1600’s were the coldest century of the last two millennia…
But the funniest thing is that the 1600’s were possibly the coldest century of the Holocene since the 8.2 KYA Cooling Event…
Disclaimer: I’m not implying that Hurricane (AKA post-tropical cyclone) Sandy or its devastating effects on millions of people are funny. I’m only saying that efforts to link this storm to global warming are 
.
References
Geological Society of America Bulletin 113 (6): 714–727.
Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data.
Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not only the 17th century storms but the September 23, 1815 hurricane occurred during the Little Ice Age, associated with the Maunder & Dalton sunspot minima. The latter also blew in after the April 10, 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa, Indonesia, the most powerful in recorded history. Its initial explosion was followed by six months (Sept) to three years of increased steaming & small phreatic eruptions. The ash & gas column lowered global temperatures, which cooling probably led to worldwide harvest failures in 1816, the “Year Without a Summer”.
Colder periods are generally stormier, due to the increased temperature gradient between the equator & poles. Somehow climate “scientists” manage to overlook this demonstrable, physical fact.
It is a function of where the storm hits.
Sandy’s storm surge in Rhode Island is irrelevant. The storm surges identifed in the sediment cores were high enough (>3 m) to cause overwash fan deposits. Sandy’s storm surge in Rhode Island would not have caused an overwash fan deposit.
milodonharlani says:
November 1, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Not only the 17th century storms but the September 23, 1815 hurricane occurred during the Little Ice Age, associated with the Maunder & Dalton sunspot minima. The latter also blew in after the April 10, 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa, Indonesia, the most powerful in recorded history. Its initial explosion was followed by six months (Sept) to three years of increased steaming & small phreatic eruptions. The ash & gas column lowered global temperatures, which cooling probably led to worldwide harvest failures in 1816, the “Year Without a Summer”.
Colder periods are generally stormier, due to the increased temperature gradient between the equator & poles. Somehow climate “scientists” manage to overlook this demonstrable, physical fact.
I don’t see a connection between Mount Tambora and the 1815 hurricane. It takes a year for CO2 to cross hemispheres, so such a large volcanic eruption in the southern hemisphere would be expected to take a year to affect the northern hemisphere.
Where does this notion originate that the LIA was cold in the tropics? There was still a Gulf Stream back then that could take a hurricane into the Atlantic and feed it.
The fact is the only thing I’ve heard climate scientists say about hurricanes and warming is they will eventually become fewer, but more intense. That makes sense because warmer water should feed an existing hurricane more and wind shear should cut down on the numbers of storms becoming hurricanes. Most hurricanes start off the west coast of Africa, so they would have to travel a good distance, without the storm being interferred with, to become a hurricane. From what I saw, Sandy started in the Caribbean, between Colombia and Nigaragua.
Climate scientists aren’t claming global warming caused Sandy, so the people claiming they did should post evidence of a climate scientist saying this. The only evidence I see are people claiming climate scientists are saying that. I’ve heard several scientists specifically asked if global warming was involved and no one said it was.
rgbatduke says:
November 1, 2012 at 11:36 am
Yeah, like you said. Previous bad storms also hit when the population living on the coast and investment in coastal development was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
————————————
Yes, there is now a virtual wall of buildings along the seafront that forces the water upwards as it tries to squeeze past them inlands, so any guages in the area in front would register higher levels than if there were no buildings. It seems to me that a valid comparison with the past would require computer modelling to remove the added resistance to flow..
According to any report I’ve read, Hurricane Hazel on October 1954 produced over 15 feet storm surge (4.57 metres)
This artilce is idiotic. Comparing storm surge heights at different lcoations is like comparing extreme temperatures in Miami and Nome – the surge is hugely dependent on the shape of the ocean floor. Do you not know this, or is your only goal to post something the credulus will find convincing?
ilma630,
Mitigating the effects of known hazards, ya know, like storm surge, which has happened many, many times before in NYC. Theres no way, with the lavish offices and structures the financial ‘capital of the world’ has that they couldn’t use some of that capital investment to strengthen the defense of the city against flooding. It’s been done forever in the netherlands. No reason we can’t here (Except the environmentalists will come out of the woodwork wanting some ridiculous study about protecting some snail or minnow, I suppose, but then I’m convinced a minnow is more important than human life to them)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-conservationist. I’m just pragmatic.
-b
Well the stupid AT&T news, I get stuck on my e-mail said that a barrier wall would have kept the storm surge out of Manhattan. Yeah ! same as New Orleans, riight.
So about how far short of the 45,000 ft cloud ceilings would you build your barrier wall; or does that depend on how deep you want the water in your swimming pool after the hurricane fills it up ??
Yes stupid it is.
One disadvantage of having a big solid rock (Manhattan) to build sky scrapers on, is that the water reservoirs you build underneath the city, don’t leak very fast, when you fill them up with water off the streets.
I trust that the economists who calculated that AGW adaptation is cheaper than AGW prevention factored in their Sandys and such like storms. Otherwise their calculations would be shonkynomics.
Apart from anything else, even assuming that the storms don’t alter in frequency and intensity, but sea level goes up and up, equivalent surges are going to start on top of a higher baseline.
Meanwhile, the rest of us ordinary mortals can start our home budgetting secure in the knowledge that premiums will rise as a result of Sandy, whether she was AGW-related or not.
B Webb says:
November 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“This artilce is idiotic. Comparing storm surge heights at different lcoations is like comparing extreme temperatures in Miami and Nome – the surge is hugely dependent on the shape of the ocean floor. ”
well far from it being my expertise to contradict the idea that storm surge height is dependent on the ocean floor, in different places, I would think that it has something to do with the direction and area the storm comes in from.
Jeff Masters (who I don’t trust very much) says there was a 15-20 foot surge in NYC in 1821. His article is interesting because he wrote it after being proven ridiculously wrong during Irene. It’s kind of a mea culpa, but he quickly reverted to his usual alarmism. So please don’t quote his 1821 storm until it is verified. Here’s the link: http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2011/11/30/hurricane-irene-new-york-city-dodges-a-potential-storm-surge-mega-disaster/#.UJMJxUITt2E
Y’all are looking at this wrong. The proper response is “You’re right, a hurricane like Sandy is proof of global warming …. so the lack of a hurricane like Sandy is proof of no global warming, right?” Best to get their response in writing so you have it available next November.
Storm surge barriers have been in place for at least a thousand years in the Netherlands where they are called dykes. (If you jump onto google and follow the dyke lines you will see in some places very large circular ponds/lakes where a whirlpool has gouged a huge hole following a dyke breach. The rebuilt dyke may do something of a semi-circle around the pond.)
The engineering construction principles are well-known. Most dyke breaks occur when the dykes are overtopped or when the water pressure at the base forces a breach through (or under) a part of the dyke that is insufficiently broad, strong or impervious.
The dyke has to be higher than any possible water level caused by any possible combination of bad surge factors. Near enough is not good enough. The dyke has to be built for the most extreme possible situation. The other lesson is that you can have miles of dykes but if there is one weak point then miles of dykes are useless. Quality control is critical.
I understand that had the New Orleans dykes been built to expert Dutch recommendations, New Orleans would not have been flooded. New Orleans is also a case study in the debate about whether prevention is less expensive than adaptation. I suggest that adaptation in New Orleans has been more expensive than prevention would have been.
In any case, the main lesson is that you cannot build and maintain dykes on the cheap.
As sea levels rise (and storm surges have a higher base-line starting point) many low-lying cities around the world are going to have to do their cost-benefit sums on installing and maintaining storm surge barriers or abandoning their cities altogether.
City fathers will, do doubt, take comfort that individuals such as the economist Dr Lomberg, and Nobel Prize winning climate scientist Lord Moncton argue that adapation is cheaper than prevention.
Was just reading Wiki’s list of New York hurricanes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
and came across this piece of info:
1893 New York hurricane – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane
“The storm inflicted severe damage with storm tides as high as 30 ft (9.1 m)”.
“A 30 ft (9.1 m) storm surge impacted the shore, demolishing structures”.
Also had a lowest pressure of 952hPa.
BC
Some of the speculation prior to Sandy coming ashore included questions about whether the height of the storm surge would coincide with a full moon high tide. I don’t know whether this did end up happening.
Comparing apple-to-apple storm surges would need to take into account ocean floor topography as well as the state of the tides when maximum surge heights are recorded.
The 1938 hurricane, which missed NYC itself by just a few miles, gave 30 to 40 foot surges in many places, and 100 feet in Providence.
Apparently the difference between “extreme weather” and “normal weather” is in the relative longitude. If a terrible storm passes just east of NYC, it’s “normal weather”, not caused by Evil KKKarbon. If a terrible storm moves a bit west and hits NYC, it’s “extreme weather” inevitably caused by Evil KKKarbon.
Amazingly smart, this Evil KKKarbon! It knows where the Important People live, and carefully navigates storms to hit them as a lesson and warning! Important people, repent! Turn all your efforts toward eliminating all Unimportant People in all English-speaking countries! This is your last chance!
p
A storm surge as high as a ten storey building? Um…really?
I grew up in London UK in the 1960s and wondered what the steel and rubber doors were on the way in to underground stations near the thames were, now I know. I would guess that without the promis of federal money to put it right NewYork would have them too. Also who in their right mind would build flimsy wooden homes on a beach, Ive seen huge waves break over Cornish granite homes with little damage, but then again the feds were not there to pick up the tab, the stupidity is strong in this one!
CE
I am not sure why you are obsessing about ‘federal money’. I suppose it has got something to do with your politics and not with climate science. In the context of barriers, dykes and flood doors, here is a location where prevention has been deemed by governments to be more sensible than adaptation:
You had flooding, because the storm surge coincided with the high tide. If you start paying carbon tax – in future all storm surges and hurricanes will arrive, when is low tide. pay and stop complaining!!!
This quote comes to mind when reading the post above:
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
~Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)
☺
Chris Edwards says:
November 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm
“I grew up in London UK in the 1960s and wondered what the steel and rubber doors were on the way in to underground stations near the thames were, now I know. I would guess that without the promis of federal money to put it right NewYork would have them too. Also who in their right mind would build flimsy wooden homes on a beach, Ive seen huge waves break over Cornish granite homes with little damage, but then again the feds were not there to pick up the tab, the stupidity is strong in this one!”
A number of years ago, I wrote to the governor of Florida and asked why they didn’t put some steel in the code for home construction in a land swept by hurricanes. I pointed out that I visited 18th Century plantation homes in Louisiana that, were still standing, having been built with sturdy heavy wood frames. Many are the worse for wear – no paint for over 100 years but they weren’t blown, or washed away. He never replied.
I dare say that, rightly or wrongly, Ms Sandy will reinforce some of these trends:
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012/
Are you sure David? I need to see at least some model results until I believe that assertion. Taking a storm that could produce a 3m surge in NYC and having it hit near Rhode Island, and considering the coastline and focusing of the south shore of Rhode Island, could very well be large enough to overwash into Succotash Marsh. Gentlemen’s bet on it?
The problem here is that, unless you can prove that the track of the the 1635 and 1638 storms was similar enough to Sandy, comparing their storm surges in the same place as an indicator of the relative intensity of the storms is unwarranted.
I don’t disagree with your point that Sandy not the only powerful storm to hit New England. But the logic in this post does not allow for such a conclusion.
Howskepticalment says: “here is a location where prevention has been deemed by governments to be more sensible than adaptation”
I’m going from (old) memory so correct me if I’m wrong – but there is essentially no ability to “adapt” there hence the massive sea walls and storm gates. I believe (again from memory) the Dutch has some massive similar projects ?