A Reply to Hurricane Sandy Alarmists

A suggestion the Great Gale of 1821 was worse than Hurricane Sandy, and Alarmists are wrong to suggest otherwise.

Guest post by Caleb Shaw

While I am often humbled, when it comes to predicting the weather, I did correctly predict the fact that, when the inevitable happened, and a hurricane did clobber the East Coast, that certain individuals would use the event to promote their Global Warming Agenda.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/hurricane-warning-mckibben-alert/

Graphic from the August 21st 2012 story

The chief fact used, in the Alarmist argument about Sandy, is the simple truth the tide which New York City experienced during Sandy “beat the record.” This gives Alarmists the chance to dust off their favorite word, “unprecedented.” They love that word, because by suggesting something is, “without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled,” they somehow manage to convince themselves it means something has gone haywire; something is dreadfully wrong.

There are two good ways to calm such people down. First, it is helpful to explain to them that every newborn child is “unprecedented,” and “without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled,” because each newborn has fingerprints like none ever seen before on Earth. Therefore, there is no reason to panic. In fact, a new baby, and newness in general, is actually a delightful thing. Without newness life gets pretty darn boring.

In fact, that is why it is so much fun to try to predict the weather, even though you are bound to be humbled. Weather is always producing things never seen before. Weather is forever fresh and new.

The second way to calm down Alarmists is to point out hurricanes have happened before, and have actually been worse. Alarmists will then, of course, state no storm has ever been as bad as Sandy, for none had such a surge in New York. At this point you need to pat the back of their hand, say “now-now” and “there-there,” (and a few other anxiety-reducing things,) and ask them how much they know about the 1821 storm that set the “old” record.

Most Alarmists fail to study history much. Unfortunately, most don’t want to. They have their minds made up, because they hunger for an impossible thing called “closure,” which has a side effect of creating a closed mind. However if you coddle them, and ask them to “listen just to humor you,” you might get them to look at the history of the Great Gale of 1821.

Unlike Sandy, that hurricane didn’t dawdle. It came ripping up the coast, and was in and out of New York in a matter of hours. The people of the time reported a tide 13 feet above the ordinary high tide, but the best studies put the peak tide at 11.2 feet. Sandy reached 13.88 feet.

(You cannot fail to notice how much more scientific we have become. Back in 1821 they only measured a surge in tenths-of-a-foot. Now we measure in hundredths.)

Simple arithmetic suggests the 1821 storm’s high water was 2.68 feet lower than Sandy’s. However the interesting thing about the 1821 storm is that it came barreling through at dead low tide. Tides in New York vary roughly 6 feet between low and high tides.

Therefore, to be fair, it seems you should add six feet to the 1821 storm, if you want to compare that storm with Sandy’s surge at high tide. This would increase the 1821 high water to 17.2 feet.

On top of that, you have to factor in the influence of the full moon during Sandy. That adds an extra foot to the high tide. Add an extra foot to the 1821 score and you have 18.2 feet.

Joe D’Aleo at WeatherBELL brought up yet another fascinating factor: 1821 was at the end of the Little Ice Age, when a great chill had cooled the oceans. Because water contracts when it cools, the seas were roughly a foot lower back then. Therefore, to be fair, we need to add yet another foot to the 1821 storm, which gives us a total of 19.2 feet.

Joe Bastardi, also over at WeatherBELL, can do better than that. All you need to do is shift the track of the 1938 “Long Island Express” hurricane, with it’s last minute jog to the northwest, eighty miles to the West-by-West-southwest, and you have a storm surge of well over twenty feet surging up the Hudson River. That is practically a tsunami, and likely would reach Albany.

In other words, Sandy wasn’t so tough. In some ways, Sandy was a Wuss, and an imperfect storm, compared to 1821, which had wind gusts toppling chimneys in Philadelphia, entire houses in New York City, and flattening forests up through New England.

In conclusion, things could get a lot worse for New York City, even if storms are not a bit “unprecedented.” Things could be worse even if they are ordinary!!!!!

It helps a lot if you get a bit wild-eyed, as you say this. Alarmists are better able to listen to wild-eyed types, than they are able to listen to dull, factual sanity.

It might help even more if you grab them by the lapels and repetitively hoist them up and slam them down, launching into a rave. You’ll have to make up your own rave, (and it helps a lot if you practice the wild-eyes in a mirror beforehand,) but my own rave would be something like this:

“You stupid, ignorant, son-of-a-Susquash! We have known for decades New York‘s subways would flood in a perfect storm. It was a real threat. Why didn‘t we build flood-gates, to close up the subways in the face of storm surges or even earthquake tsunamis? Why did we waste billions on windmills and Solyndra?…”

You can move on from there, but in some cases all your efforts will be in vain.

Never stop trying, for you never know when an idiot might be redeemed, but don’t be discouraged if you fail, for in some cases explaining Truth to Alarmists is preaching to the mire.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

116 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AndyG55
November 2, 2012 1:50 am

Come on Caleb, you KNOW that the extra tiny amount of CO2 caused the high tide and the storm surge to coincide.
That’s how clever CO2 is !!! 😉

M
November 2, 2012 1:52 am

Like alarmists care for the truth or cold hard facts :o)

Peter Stroud
November 2, 2012 1:58 am

Someone should draw this to the attention of the mayor of New York. And Mr Obama, of course.

Frank Kotler
November 2, 2012 2:04 am

Thanks Caleb! I’ve been wondering about that “previous record” and how much we “beat” it by. Low tide, you say? That must be why it didn’t flood the subways! 🙂

observa
November 2, 2012 2:32 am

35 year old climate catastrophist/crisisist- ‘I’m the tallest I’ve ever been this last last fifteen years so naturally I’m worried about getting too tall.’
Now that’s what you’d call unprecedented except that there’s a helluva lot of them.

Green Sand
November 2, 2012 2:46 am

Have great sympathy for those who have suffered from Sandy’s wrath and as is said above there are lessons to learn. Doesn’t have to be a hurricane.
“The Floods of 1953”
“The 1953 floods were caused by a major storm surge which coincided with a naturally high spring tide. Storm surges are caused when air pressure and strong winds push a volume of water across large distances. The result is an elevated body or ‘hump’ of seawater which can move towards the coast and overtop sea defences. Small changes in atmospheric pressure can result in large volumes of water being displaced. The storm surge that caused the 1953 floods resulted in sea levels rising almost 3 meters above normal high water marks. Most sea defences along the east coast of England were not designed for such events and most could not prevent the oncoming wave of water.Sadly, many of the deaths caused by the floods could have been avoided if an effective flood warning system had been in place and communities had been given sufficient time to evacuate.”

http://thamesweb.com/1953-floods.html
Also at-
“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.
Duration: 31 January – 1 February 1953
Fatalities: 2,551 killed
Damages: 9% of total Dutch farmland flooded, 30,000 animals drowned, 47,300 buildings damaged of which 10,000 destroyed
Areas affected: Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

Patrick
November 2, 2012 3:00 am

Isn’t the severity of a storm in direct proportion to the number of tweets, Facebook posts and media coverage? Sandy was the worst storm EVAH!!!! /sarc off

Keitho
Editor
November 2, 2012 3:00 am

Excellent article. Unfortunately the MSM has got hold of the AGW meme and are thrashing it to death now. You can’t blame politicians like Bloomberg and Gore for jumping all over this because that is their profession and they will never let a good crisis go to waste.
The enemy of truth is the MSM. That has always been true and never more so than now. Most people just see a headline or two and that fixes things in their heads for ever really and they are quite happy to let others do their thinking for them as they have lives to get on with.
The MSM has an ideology and it seems to be coordinated. They are left/liberal and that message transcends everything they report. You could be forgiven for thinking that they learn this bias at journalism school and have it reinforced daily by the corporate culture they operate in.
As for “unprecedented” I call bollocks on that.

Bloke down the pub
November 2, 2012 3:03 am

Frank Kotler says:
November 2, 2012 at 2:04 am
Thanks Caleb! I’ve been wondering about that “previous record” and how much we “beat” it by. Low tide, you say? That must be why it didn’t flood the subways!
And of course why it didn’t knock out the electricity.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
November 2, 2012 5:01 am

You may wish to read these . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Hurricane_of_1938
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
It isn’t sensible or honest to imply that Sandy was unprecedented in either scale or cause.

peterg
November 2, 2012 3:18 am

Do not hurricanes, cyclone, and low pressure systems in general rotate in a counter clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere? The graphic above appears to come from the southern hemisphere.

Otter
November 2, 2012 3:18 am

(and a few other anxiety-reducing things)
A 2×4 comes to mind…
I’ve had a person berating me for being ‘heartless’ in my writing as to how Sandy is far from the worst storm to ever hit NY. I told him if he really wants to avoid the death and destruction of hurricanes, best to evacuate the entire East Coast, inland, for at least 100 miles.

cRR Kampen
November 2, 2012 3:19 am

Just totally forget Irene.
Next year, when a comparably record large system moves mildly into the area where that highway could never be flooded at cat 4 strength, just forget Sandy, too. Remember 1821? Of course!

November 2, 2012 3:23 am

”Convince a man against his will, he’s of the same opinion still”.
English saying.
Very interesting report. Nothing like the truth to counter alarmism.

milodonharlani
November 2, 2012 3:23 am

Blame environmentalists who have kept New York from building surge barriers across the Narrows or from Sandy Hook to Rockaway Point.

Dale
November 2, 2012 3:40 am

Seems the folks at SkS don’t want to learn history. I got banned for trying to teach them about it.
Pffft. No loss to me.
Oh, and since they like to come here and stalk the “deniers” and make lists of who to burn “when the truth is accepted”, they can add me to the list. I don’t want to live in a world run by them where history is rewritten and the truth suppressed.

P. Solar
November 2, 2012 3:42 am

Sure, the coincidence of landfall timing and high tide was big problem. 3ft of tide on top of almost 14ft of swell makes a _lot_ of difference to the resultant flooding.
Now hurricane energy IS related to surface temperature:
http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
We also see , immediately, that the current high AMO temperatures have little to do with anything that can be called AGW and are part of NORMAL climate variations.
Maybe current temp peak (and hence cyclone energy) is a bit higher than the last one and to be objective, this needs to be recognised and looked at. However, the biggest factor by a long way, is the fact that we are at the peak of a natural variation.
This is not “weird weather” , it is normal climate variation.

November 2, 2012 3:51 am

A quick back-of-the-envelope: The AWEA says we have 50 GW of wind generating capacity (as of August; the NMWA says each MW of turbine needs about 500 tons of stuff, mostly steel and concrete. That means we’ve done 25 million tons of heavy/high-tech construction that could have been used to build seawalls or otherwise harden infrastructure.

Philip Finck
November 2, 2012 3:54 am

Thanks for the information. The information will be quite useful as part of a graphic discussing Hurricane Sandy. Would you provide a simple reference for the information. Unfortunately citing WUWT is not desirable when presenting to other geoscientists. No slur intended Anthony. WUWT is my first stop in the morning and last at night.

Ryan
November 2, 2012 4:07 am

Highest wind speed ever recorded anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere was at Mount Washington, New Hampshire in 1931. Wind speed was a sustained 231mph! This was not a tropical cyclone – but it was a real “Frankenstorm” born from two frontal systems.
Of course the highest sustained regular winds are not related to tropical cyclones at all, but tend to occur nearer to the poles. The Scottish islands regularly experience wind speeds >90mph. Antartica rgularly experiences winds >110mph. I would fear the coming ice-age far more than any possible warming.

Bill
November 2, 2012 4:13 am

So Caleb,
You admit that CO2 is now also affecting the tides and the moon? That is also unprecedented! 😉

Bob
November 2, 2012 4:25 am

Good piece. The “unprecedented” bit is the size of the storm hitting such a high population. US only, we aren’t concerned about the rest of the world. It is terrible that the storm happened and I do feel for the folks involved. However, if you live near the ocean, tidal estuaries or rivers then you need to expect something like this every now and then. I’m pretty sure that the elected leadership will hype “unprecedented” to cover that, like New Orleans, they hadn’t prepared for something like this with flood gates and other protection. On the other hand, if the expected frequency is several decades, do you really prepare? And will the leadership be honest enough to admit they made the economic decision not to prepare?

Geoff Sherrington
November 2, 2012 4:28 am

It’s madness. Heard here in Oz, ” … the death toll from the hurricane is at least 87 and is not expected to increase unless more bodies are found”.
Whatever happened to education, use of English language, locig?

garymount
November 2, 2012 4:43 am

Years from now, when the average temperature of the Earth has plummeted from its high of 288 point something to a more climate friendly 288 point something a little lower, and after having spent 35 trillion dollars to do so, Parents will be able to bring their children to the scene of a natural hurricane disaster and gaze upon the billions of dollars of destruction and tell their children:
“See that children, none of that destruction can be blamed on us, its all natural”
[As you can imagine, you can fill out this storey with perhaps the children looking up at their parents and wondering about their delusion and how that 35 trillion dollars could have been better spent. Go ahead and create more storeys like this, I have a lot of work to do developing software related to tools for climate science researchers and enthusiasts that I hope to have available over the next few years. More details sometime next year, maybe 🙂 ]

Editor
November 2, 2012 5:14 am

Thanks, a much more sensible post than one I got sucked into dickering over whether Sandy was a hurricane, tropical storm, or extratropical at landfall….

pat
November 2, 2012 5:25 am

a reminder, i have no horse in your presidential race and believe your choice of candidates is laughable. however, here is the narrative of the day being built:
Bloomberg says Bloomberg endorsement has given Obama a boost:
2 Nov: Bloomberg: Julie Hirschfeld Davis/Henry Goldman: Bloomberg Post-Sandy Backing Gives Obama Unexpected Boost
Republican strategist Matthew Dowd, a Bloomberg Television analyst: “There just feels like there’s been a shift, and I think Mayor Bloomberg endorsing — and in the way he did it — I think just gives more of an impression that that shift is happening” in the presidential race in Obama’s favor.
That narrative “can be powerful going into an Election Day where this thing was dead even,” Dowd said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-02/bloomberg-post-sandy-backing-gives-obama-unexpected-boost.html
Ground Zero for the carbon cowboys – Reuters Point Carbon:
2 Nov: Reuters Point Carbon: Valerie Volcovici: NY mayor cites climate stance in endorsing Obama
Climate change was catapulted to the forefront of the U.S. general election on Thursday after New York’s independent mayor threw his weight behind Democratic President Barack Obama, citing his stance on climate change..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-climate-obama-idUSBRE8A10CV20121102
David Karoly is on the Science Advisory Panel for the Climate Commission. Murdoch’s newspapers in Australia are reporting exactly the same nonsense and including the Bloomberg endorsement:
3 Nov: Age, Australia: Ben Cubby: This is the new normal, warn climate scientists
HURRICANE Sandy was a bigger, fiercer and more damaging storm because of human-induced global warming, an analysis produced by Australia’s Climate Commission has found.
The burning of fossil fuels had made a material contribution to the atmospheric conditions that bred and sustained the storm, the report said, echoing international studies produced over the past few days.
On Thursday the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, endorsed Barack Obama in the US presidential election, citing the urgency of tackling climate change…
”This requires urgent action on carbon dioxide emissions.”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/this-is-the-new-normal-warn-climate-scientists-20121102-28phb.html

1 2 3 5
Verified by MonsterInsights