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.
An interesting find on the storm surge associated with Sandy at Battery, NY. The true surge as a result of Sandy was 5 feet higher than the level would have been without Sandy’s influence.
All the talk that I have heard and read keeps using 13 feet storm surge. That is misleading. It is being referenced to low tide level. High tide and the moon would have likely put the level between 7 and 8 feet above low tide without any influence from Sandy.
Check this link out soon as the relevant graph will disappear when the site updates. Go to Battery, NY then choose history and then scroll down to the last graph. I don’t know how to post a screen capture in a comment so you may want to make your own capture.
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/mdl/etsurge/index.php?page=stn®ion=ne&type=history&stn=nybat
Good post. Trust a geologist to introduce common sense to a subject.
A.Scott
Yep the Delta works in Holland are similar. (There is an added benefit that the Delta Works actually also creates usable land as a bonus, whereas the Thames Barrage just stops periodic flooding of the city of London.)
The way I would construct things is that, accepting the AGW context, prevention would be to pay the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Adaptation would be not doing so and paying for the negative consequences of AGW.
In a non-AGW context, both the Thames Barrage and the Delta Works are prevention of flooding in the context of natural weather variability. Also in that context, ‘adaptation’ would be not building the Barrage or the Works, putting up with periodic floodings, and paying to repair and rebuild every time there is a flood.
eyesonu
Note that there are different reference levels in use for calculating the height of a storm surge. I have no idea which reference level was used for Hurricane Sandy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge
Some storm surge data from the Netherlands:
The highest storm surge of the last 100 years was in 2006 at 4.83m above
normal (only minor localised flooding). The previous record was from 1825 at
4.65m.
The disaster of 1953 with widespread flooding was at 4.5m. After this disaster the Dutch
initiated a nationwide project to improve the see defenses and define a minimum
standard for all levies, dykes, barriers and whatever.
Your run of the mill high water storm surge is between 3.5 and 4.0 meter, which
have occured an odd 15 times over the past two decades and rarely give
problems.
Just a topical image:
The image fell off the cliff; here it is.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Hurricane_Carol_Storm_Surge_in_color_1954.jpg/300px-Hurricane_Carol_Storm_Surge_in_color_1954.jpg
I see you managed to cut & paste the abstract without reading the paper or even comprehending the abstract.
The 1635 and 1638 hurricanes and their storm surges were based on historical observations.
Historical records of 5 storms with >3 m storm surges were identified. Six overwash fan sequences were identified in the sediment cores. 3 of those fan sequences distinctly correlated with the post-1638 storm, 1 correlated with either the 1635 or 1638 storm and 2 predated the 1635 storm. A storm surge would have to top the barrier beach (>3 m) in order to deposit an overwash fan in the salt marsh.
Sea level was probably falling from ~1200 to ~1600 AD. In a regressive sequence, overwash fan deposit preservation would have been the exception rather than the norm. It’s possible that the 1635 and 1638 storm surges generated one amalgamated fan, that the 1635 fan was quickly eroded away or that the most seaward core wasn’t seaward enough to intercept the 1635 fan.
The beach and the salt marsh have been rising along with sea level and moving shoreward. This is what transgressive sequences do.
I see your point.
Yes, other things factor into storm surges beyong just storm intensity and wind speed. One example: Storm surges tend to be worse where the continental shelf is broad and shallowly dipping. This is why storm surges can be really bad along the Gulf Coat.
The 1938 storm surge in Figure 1 is from the “Long Island Express,” as measured by tide gauges at Newport RI and/or New London CT…
The 1635, 1638 and 1815 hurricanes caused storm surges in southern Rhode Island that approached or exceeded the Long Island Express. Also, bear in mind that these historical surges weren’t necessarily the maximum surges associated with those storms. We don’t really know what the tracks were. We just know that over the last 700 years, at least 7 storms were strong enough to cause >3 m storm surges in southern Rhode Island.
Eyesonu says “High tide and the moon would have likely put the level between 7 and 8 feet above low tide without any influence from Sandy.
Check this link”
Your graph clearly shows the tide would only have been 4-5 feet high, not 7-8 feet. Where did you get 7-8 feet?
This site suggest the high tide for Monday evening, Oct 29 should have been 4.7 feet at the Battery with no storm.
From Howskepticalment on November 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm:
Wow, it worked. I thought I knew what would show up from Googling “dyke lines”, especially with SafeSearch off. I was wrong. Guess Google really does track my history and knew I’d be looking for geological/climate-type info, during the daytime.
A warmarxist is someone who thinks not driving an SUV does more to combat flood damage than proper building-codes and infrastructure.
hmm.
You compare a non hurricane to historical cat 3+
And your point would be? not much.
The situation seems pretty clear to me. Historically this coastline has seen larger storm surges.
That’s not really the issue. The issue is twofold
A) Is this coastline adequately prepared for storms that are typical. Answer? clearly no.
people have continued to develop in areas that are risky. Officials still do not know how
to prepare adequately. That goes to issues about building codes and evacuation plans.
We have not built resilient communities. Adaptation seems in order.
B) Should we expect the future to be
1) about the same as the past
2.) Less stormy than the past
3) have more intense storms than the past.
AGW argues for #3. We can expect the future to have more frequent or more intense storms than the past. Less ice in the summer leads to more blocking patterns over greenland and a
higher probability that storms will do that nice little left hook. How much higher probability?
That’s highly uncertain. But, if you are planning for the future, dont count on B1 or B2. If you are planning for the future, your best information tells you to err on the side of caution and expect
B3. That’s merely a saftey margin question
Can we mitigate our way out of this. Cut C02 and hope that things dont get worse? Also hard to say. I remain doubtful that any mitigation scheme will be put in place or if put it place I doubt that governments will abide by it. Which leaves us with adaptation and creating resilient communities. The simple fact is that we are ill prepared for a future that has the same number and same intensity of storms, much less one that has worse weather.
David Middleton says:
November 2, 2012 at 7:19 am
I see you managed to cut & paste the abstract without reading the paper or even comprehending the abstract.
The 1635 and 1638 hurricanes and their storm surges were based on historical observations.
Historical records of 5 storms with >3 m storm surges were identified. Six overwash fan sequences were identified in the sediment cores. 3 of those fan sequences distinctly correlated with the post-1638 storm, 1 correlated with either the 1635 or 1638 storm and 2 predated the 1635 storm. A storm surge would have to top the barrier beach (>3 m) in order to deposit an overwash fan in the salt marsh.
Sea level was probably falling from ~1200 to ~1600 AD. In a regressive sequence, overwash fan deposit preservation would have been the exception rather than the norm. It’s possible that the 1635 and 1638 storm surges generated one amalgamated fan, that the 1635 fan was quickly eroded away or that the most seaward core wasn’t seaward enough to intercept the 1635 fan.
The beach and the salt marsh have been rising along with sea level and moving shoreward. This is what transgressive sequences do.
I’ve read more than the abstract, like how the founder of Rhode Island was, banished, but sick in Salem, Massachusetts in 1635, and slipped away to live with the Wampanoags in Jan, 1636, when the sheriff came to pick him up. There was no historical observations of the 1635 and 1638 hurricanes and their storm surges in Rhode Island, but there are records that may have survived in nearby Plymouth Colony or around Jamestown, Va. The settlements in Massachusetts did expand along the coast and reached present day New Hampshire by 1835. That was the extent of settlement at that time.
After I posted I did observe that the fans for 1635 and 1638 could have been for both combined because it happened without giving enough time to separate the layers or it could be one or the other.
The abstract said this and it makes some sense:
In a regime of rising sea level, accumulation of marsh, lake, or lagoon sediments on top of overwash deposits will preserve a record of overwash deposition.
That’s saying a rising sea level is required to preserve the record of a salt water marsh, which makes sense to an extent, because the record has to be buried by an actively growing marsh for it to be preserved. It’s also possible to preserve a record in a salt water marsh, if the marsh is subsiding relative to the sea level.
14 sediment samples in that salt marsh can’t tell the magnitude of a surge. The sediment cores can only show an event occurred. You claim the barrier beach moved, so how do you know it was always the same height of (>3 m), but never height enough to prevent a storm surge? In my short lifetime, I’ve seen sand on barrier islands move. According to this study, this barrier beach is able to get eroded by a hurricane to produce overwash fans and remain at the same height during all this time. I’ve seen maps in the neighboring Massachusetts peninsula showing the whole shoreline changing rapidly with time.
Does the study just assume the barrier beach has to always remain the same height and how did it conclude the magnitude of the surges to quantize events over the (>3 m) barrier beach? Sandy at 4 m should have produced a similar overwash fan, like the 1938 and 1954 events that were photographed. If the barrier beach has moved as you claimed, how do you measure the past height of something that doesn’t exist?
Mosh said
“….3) have more intense storms than the past.
AGW argues for #3. We can expect the future to have more frequent or more intense storms than the past. Less ice in the summer leads to more blocking patterns over greenland and a
higher probability that storms will do that nice little left hook. How much higher probability?”
Citations? Less temperature difference betwen poles and equator surely means less energy for storms? . I have cited previously observations that demonstrate bigger storms in the LIA (or cooler periods) than present and that Blocking patterns can be observed right through the LIA
tonyb
David Middleton,
Another very good article. Thanks for posting.
And re Mosher’s claim: the hurricane of 1938 was much worse. It was a Cat 3 storm that hit Long Island sound with 120 mph winds.
What was the CO2 concentration in 1938?
climatereason says:
November 2, 2012 at 10:23 am
Mosh said
“….3) have more intense storms than the past.
AGW argues for #3. We can expect the future to have more frequent or more intense storms than the past. Less ice in the summer leads to more blocking patterns over greenland and a
higher probability that storms will do that nice little left hook. How much higher probability?”
Citations? Less temperature difference betwen poles and equator surely means less energy for storms? . I have cited previously observations that demonstrate bigger storms in the LIA (or cooler periods) than present and that Blocking patterns can be observed right through the LIA
tonyb
Citations? I don’t have to give citations, I can give proof again and I haven’t seen it refuted. If you have posted anything claiming bigger storms involve more of a temperature difference between the poles and equator, then you have posted voodoo science. Having less of a temperature difference means more Rossby waves or meanders form in the polar jet stream. The meanders can bring cooler air farther south and warmer air farther north. A storm’s intensity is the result of these extreme air masses contacting each other, so more Rossby waves means more contact of extreme air masses. Rossby waves also tend to stall weather pattern over an area allowing repeat weather which also creates extreme conditions. It’s also erroneous to consider the intensity of a hurricane being the same as a normal storm. Hurricanes become intense by gathering heat from a warm ocean and not because they are next to a cold front.
I’ve already posted a video of a reinsurer discussing risk to people in the business. If you want information, follow the money and all the money isn’t involved in the fossil fuel industries. The gentleman giving the lecture said they were evaluating global warming risks from CO2 starting in 1973 and that was before global warming was a public concern. The gentleman is in the business of insuring insurance companies around the world, so any future risk needs to be considered.
I posted the charts of events that the gentleman used in his presentation and it clearly shows more events in the past 30 years (1980 – 2010). The geophysical events were basically constant, but all the events related to weather increased. There were 2.5 times the amount of events in 30 years. The data doesn’t involve payouts for increases in population or property, it only envolves the amount of acutal events, like droughts, floods and storms, for instance. The charts are posted on a similar thread by Watts. You can pretend all you want to, but the facts clearly show extreme events have become more common than they were in the past 30 or so years.
It’s impossible to make a connection with a specific hurricane to climate change, but the risk of New York City being struck by a hurricane has increased. There is more of a tendency now for high pressure to park itself over Greenland than in the past and that means the clockwise circulation of the high has more of a tendency to block and drive the counterclockwise circulation of a hurricane into the east coast. This trend to have Greenland highs has positive feedback, because a Greenland high makes more sea ice drift through the Fram Strait and exit the arctic. As the amount of sea ice is reduced, high pressure is more likely to favor the cold of Greenland over the cold of the arctic sea ice. At the minimum, the arctic sea ice is just slightly larger than the ice sheets of Greenland and Greenland is colder. People who have studied arctic sea ice have noticed this pattern happening more often.
Most hurricanes start off the west coast of Africa and they need the lack of wind shear to develop. Rossby waves should increase the chances for wind shear, so fewer tropical depressions should develop into hurricanes. Sandy started late in the hurricane season and started in the Caribbean. Based on weather patterns, I’d say the late season hurricanes would have more of a chance to hit the east coast than than the early season hurricanes.
Gary Lance says:
“Citations? I don’t have to give citations…”
Good, because when you do give citations they are worthless. If you believe an insurance company’s advertising is science then you are certainly desperate.
The fact is that extreme weather events have been declining for decades. Let’s look at a peer reviewed chart. There is nothing ‘unprecedented’ in any of this. The hurricane of 1937 hit Long Island as a Cat 3 storm with 120 mph winds, and a much larger storm surge than tropical storm Sandy. What was the CO2 level in 1937? It was much lower than now.
Tornado fatalities are also declining.
And as far as the Arctic goes, this is simply a natural cycle. It has happened before repeatedly, and it will happen again. All your wild-eyed running around in circles and arm waving is amusing to watch. But it is only your misguided alarmist belief. It is not reality.
Finally, sea levels are not accelerating, no matter what you personally believe. They are gradually decelerating over the long term, as this Holgate chart shows. And ocean heat content is not rising, as the ARGO buoy network shows. Without OHC accelerating there is currently no global warming. The alarmist contingent is proven wrong once again — by the real world.
Empirical evidence debunks your belief system. There is no evidence showing that anything unprecedented is occurring. None. All current climate parameters have been greatly exceeded in the past; and the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
D Böehm says:
November 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm
More mouth without evidence! Try posting links that deal with the subject! Are there more extreme events now than in the past. That means all extreme events and not cherry picking things to call it data.
Check the reinsurer at the end of this video and see the charts!
Refute these charts!
http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg
http://www.wrsc.org/sites/default/files/images/2012/4_natural_disaster_compared_to_gwp.png
Lance says:
“More mouth without evidence! Try posting links that deal with the subject!”
Are you blind?? I posted links [scientific evidence] with every comment. And I note that it is in the financial interest of insurance companies to show rapidly increasing disasters. But as I showed in my link above, that is not true when government and university numbers are used. [There; your charts are refuted.] And your video is nothing but Al Gore-style PBS globaloney, demonizing "stupid rich people living wherever they want". I prefer honest science to visual propaganda intended only to alarm the populace. Readers can decide if they want to believe that carp, or Holgate’s peer reviewed science and the University of Colorado. They cannot both be right, because they are contradictory.
Your belief system is quite impenetrable, so go ahead and believe your accelerating sea level scare stories. But in fact, the sea level rise since the LIA is not accelerating, as I showed in Holgate's peer reviewed chart. In fact, the long term trend shows a gradual deceleration in sea level rise. I also refer you to John Daly’s meticulous analysis, based entirely on empirical observations. Explain to us how a Mean Sea Level marker cut into stone in the 1800’s is at the same MSL today.
Gary
You have stumbled into a conversation I have had elsewhere with mosh and are taking things out of context.
Are severe weather events taking place more frequently over the last thirty years than the previous thirty? Possibly. However I was referring to the numerous reports of Historic severe weather far worse than today that I have seen in such places as the archives of the met office. Hubert lamb wrote of them in ‘ historic storms of the north sea British isles and northwest Europe.’ in which he wrote of storms since 1509.
Having personally read tens of thousands of observations back to the 11th century it is clear that there were extraordinarily violent weather events that surpass those of today. Reading the observations it is also apparent that there were many episodes of blocking pressure systems.
the most violent Events appeared to occur in the lia which as you know often had very hot summers as well as very cold winters.
There has been an interesting thread over at climate etc when Bill Hooke posted a study by Munich Re concerning increased insurance claims.you might usefully look at it to see if it supports your own material
Tonyb
Gary
Here is the link to the insurance article I mentioned above
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/01/learning-lessons-from-sandy/
Tonyb
The storm surges post-1635 were measured. These were all correlated with ovewash fan facies in the salt marsh sediment cores. The only post-1635 overwash fan facies sequences correlated with >3 m storm surges. While they don’t know exactly how high above sea level the crest of the barrier beach was before 1635, they do know that at least two pre-1635 storms deposited overwash fan facies in the salt marsh, 1351 AD (±56-yr)and 1425 (±21-yr). Storm surges of less than 2 m appear to be relatively common in the historical record. Storm surges above 3 m appear to be few and far between.
Deposition of the back-barrier salt marsh appears to have begun about 600-700 years ago…
eyesonu says:
November 1, 2012 at 11:35 pm
An interesting find on the storm surge associated with Sandy at Battery, NY. The true surge as a result of Sandy was 5 feet higher than the level would have been without Sandy’s influence.
All the talk that I have heard and read keeps using 13 feet storm surge. That is misleading. It is being referenced to low tide level. High tide and the moon would have likely put the level between 7 and 8 feet above low tide without any influence from Sandy.
No, the predicted range was about 4.7′ the actual was ~14′, the moon effects are included in the predictions.
NOAA data for the Battery here:
http://tinyurl.com/az4mjpb
D Böehm says:
November 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm
The discussion was about events and you posted data about deaths. It’s always the same with you. You run your mouth as if your mouth is the proof and post nonsense links that don’t prove anything.
There are more weather related events and that fact can’t be refuted. When the number of events increases two and a half times as much in 30 years, something is obviously afoot.
That is my point and the main issue.
This is a valid issue and I agree, the answer is “no.”
Although, I don’t really see the utility in preparing for 100-yr storms, beyond having sold evacuation and response plans, any more than I see the utility in preparing for the New Madrid Fault System to twitch or for Yellowstone to cook off.
Earth is a dangerous place… Always has been and always will be.
The correct answer is 1) About the same as the past… Provided you actually look at and try to understand the past.
Perhaps the greatest failing of the AGW hypothesis is that it “argues” for something and its argument inevitably follows the Precautionary Principle.
The cost to humanity of carbon mitigation would be far worse than the cost of adaptation.