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/
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

“Blaming AGW only takes the focus off of our need to prepare for major storm surge in hurricane prone areas with improved sea walls, levies, and surge barriers…”
No, blaming AGW accentuates our focus to prepare for major storm surge in hurricane prone areas with improved sea walls, levies, and surge barriers.
To paraphrase pastor Martin Niemöller, in the Northeast two years ago the eye of Hurricane Earl passed 15 miles to the east of me in Nova Scotia, but I didn’t speak out because Earl was downgraded to a tropical storm, after crossing the Gulf of Maine. Last year the eye of Hurricane Irene passed over my head in New Jersey, but I did not speak out because it wasn’t so bad a storm. This year the eye of Hurricane Sandy passed 100 miles to the south of me, but I didn’t speak out because the folks at WUWT said that 1821 was worse. Next week a Northeaster is going to hit me, but I won’t speak out because this week’s Hurricane Sandy was worse. This summer the arctic ice melted, but the folks at WUWT found a way for me not to speak out, something about the Vikings during the holocene, I recall. Next year… and the year after that…
WUWT will always have sandbag brigades ready to shelter from the gathering storms.
John West says: November 2, 2012 at 8:02 am
“@ur momisugly Tim Folkerts
I think 1954/55 beats 2011/12:
Those two certainly do give these past two years a run for the money. Hard to say which pair “wins”. So maybe the “worse pair of years” is not quite so “unprecedented”.
Tim Folkerts says:
November 2, 2012 at 6:33 am
As for “unprecedented” ..
* This area has been hit two years in a row by hurricanes, which IS unprecedented.
Nonsense.
Aug. 21, 1954: Hurricane Carol, a compact, but powerful, borderline Category 3 battered New England, killing 68. With 100 mph winds, gusting up to 135 mph, Carol caused over $460 million in damage, destroying 4,000 homes, 3,500 cars, and over 3,000 boats. This was arguably the most destructive storm to hit Southern New England since 1938.
Aug. 17-19, 1955: Hurricane Diane dropped up to 20 inches of rain, setting flood records throughout the region. Diane was recognized as the wettest tropical cyclone to impact New England and was blamed for nearly 200 deaths.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_21881164
How about in 1940s there were cold years and also were hurricane storms, it was still globe warming problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Politicians have said Sandy was not a hurricane when it came ashore. That way the homeowners insurance pays more.
We discovered another “unprecedented” event during this storm as well.
Electric cars do not play well with salt water flooding.
http://updates.jalopnik.com/post/34669789863/more-than-a-dozen-fisker-karma-hybrids-caught-fire-and
Larry
Thomas T. says:
November 2, 2012 at 8:20 am
“No, blaming AGW accentuates our focus to prepare for major storm surge in hurricane prone areas with improved sea walls, levies, and surge barriers.”
Thomas, one major flaw in your argument is that AGW proponents are driving up energy and fuel prices in the name of preventing such storms (laughably) by reducing CO2 through carbon trading schemes and expensive unreliable alternative energy programs, Paying a higher price for energy will make the cost of raw materials and labour rise that will make the construction and improvement of sea walls, levies, and surge barriers much more expensive, possibly to a point where it would be uneconomical for any construction.
Imagine if those in the path of Sandy were subject to the visionary energy sources that some desire to impose on us all.
Think of it,,,,,
Where are the large scale windfarms and massive solar power generation plants after a storm like this?
They are Gone.
How long would people be without electricity in that environment ?
I look at the news and the biggest problem seems to be the lack of energy to run things that are necessary to assist in this recovery process. No gas or electricity to power the chain saws, trucks, pumps, and on and on, is proving to be a huge handicap to the process.
The exposure to the down side of alternative energy should be part of the learning experience and discussion after something like this.
Where is my solar powered chain saw or wind powered bulldozer ?
Think about it…….
peterg says:
“November 2, 2012 at 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.”
The lower part of the storm rotates counter clockwise, but the exhaust, or top part of the storm is a relative high pressure area (an anti-cyclone) and the air comes out in a clock wise direction. If the spikes are meant to represent the cirrus outflow, the graphic is correct. If they are meant to represent feeder bands in the lower part of the storm, it is incorrect. I will give the artist the benefit of the doubt.
RE: Tim Folkerts says:
November 2, 2012 at 6:33 am
Thanks for fact-checking my data about NYC tides. What I did was check my “Old Farmers Almanac,” which instructed me to subtract five feet from Boston tides to arrive at tides in NYC. Boston tides vary between 8.5 feet and 12.2 feet.
I went beyond Wikipedia, researching the Gale of 1821. The problem is they had few if any anemometers back then, and there is no objective record of the wind speed. Wikipedia has no business pretending authority, stating the winds were 40mph in Philadelphia. The fact of the matter is we have nothing but subjective first hand accounts. If you Google the 1821 gale, sit back, and spend a couple of hours reading all 1250000 results, (I am one heck of a speed reader,) you come across some very impressive descriptions of wind damage. At the very least, there were gusts well above 40 mph.
I recommend looking at the hurricane season of 1893.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Not only did the 4th storm directly hit NYC, in August, but a few days later the remnants of the terrible Sea Island Hurricane passed over. In October that year you had the Cheniere Caminada Hurricane clobber New Orleans with force 4 winds on October 2, (actually the second hurricane to hit there that year,) and then raking through the south before heading back out to sea south of NYC. A hurricane clobbered Myrtle Beach with 120 mph winds on October 13 and then took a track very much like Hazel’s in 1954, (and though Hazel was far west of NYC the city still got some strong winds. However what is most interesting to me is the eleventh storm, which hit the Delmarva peninsula October 23. Though it “only” had 60 mph winds, its track was very similar to Sandy’s. (And if that was not enough, a final storm that year headed right at the Northeast around November 10, before veering out to sea; If that happens again this year people will go nuts for a day or two.)
Considering the northeast was under the gun so much that 1893 October, I’m not sure this year is as rare as some suggest.
RE: Art Wannlund says:
November 2, 2012 at 6:39 am
One odd thing about that 1893 hurricane that hit NYC is that it somehow slipped through the cracks, when people collected records of bad storms. It is only recently that people noticed Hog Island pretty much vanished from maps, scratched there heads, and muttered, “Sheesh; that must have been quite a storm.”
“The only thing new under the sun is the history you haven’t read.” (And a baby’s fingerprints.)
I can think of others ways to calm them down but that might result in jail time.
peterg says:
November 2, 2012 at 3:18 am
This is known as the Gore Effect.
“Dale says:
November 2, 2012 at 3:40 am
Seems the folks at SkS don’t want to learn history. I got banned for trying to teach them about it.”
SkS is a site that is not worth going to anymore. Dogma trumps any scientific literature. It is impossible to have a conginitive discussion with most folks there. They have a mind set that man is the cause of all warming, sea level rise, etc etc.
A total waste of time to go there as they have nothing valid to add to the discussion.
Sandy hit at high tide, and with normal adjustment factors, was not what one would consider an outlier storm. The storm of 1938 had wind speeds twice that of Sandy. Thankfully, Sandy was a small blurp in weather history when all is said and done.
Thomas T. says:
November 2, 2012 at 8:20 am
“No, blaming AGW accentuates our focus to prepare for major storm surge in hurricane prone areas with improved sea walls, levies, and surge barriers.”
The hell it does! Blaming AGW steals the necessary funds and focus from a very much needed adaptation response to tropical cyclones. Check the hurricane record. Rising CO2 in the atmosphere has had no impact on Atlantic tropical cyclones. Cutting emissions will be expensive (hundreds of billions of dollars) and equally have no impact on Atlantic tropical cyclones. For a fraction of that cost, we could make our coasts much more hurricane resistant. But no one in the MSM is talking about that. No…it is all about global warming. I guess it is a lot more fun and entertaining to blame someone else, than to do the required work to make homes and communities safer.
Blaming Sandy on AGW is completely anti-productive, and disparaging WUWT for having the cuts to point that out is completely irrational!
Presumed poster up-thread:
“Blaming AGW only takes the focus off of our need to prepare for major storm surge in hurricane prone areas with improved sea walls, levies, and surge barriers…”
Thomas T. says November 2, 2012 at 8:20 am
“No, blaming AGW accentuates our focus to prepare for major storm surge in hurricane prone areas with improved sea walls, levies, and surge barriers.”
_Jim:
A supposed/proposed-AGW cause may be the basis upon which this is ‘sold’ to the public; the bottom line remains that you have a ‘susceptibility to hurricanes’ (and all that come with them e.g. surge + heavy rains that inundate below-surge-level infrastructure) problem.
Thomas T. says November 2, 2012 at 8:20 am:
“This year the eye of Hurricane Sandy passed 100 miles to the south of me, but I didn’t speak out because the folks at WUWT said that 1821 was worse.”
_Jim:
Man[kind] builds below MSL (and below grade!) and what do you expect when a surge occurs due to a natural ‘phenomenon’ (yes, hurricane is natural although not an everyday occurrence) in combination with other contributing factors (e.g. the confluence of several rivers into the bay, strong offshore winds plus the full-moon tide)?
Don’t want exposure to earthquakes, avoid CA, don’t want exposure to tornadoes, avoid OK (et al), don’t want exposure to destructive coastal ‘storm’ factors (incl ‘storm surge’): avoid a whole list of states within 40 – 50 miles of the coast including NJ, NY, etc.
.
” Bruce says:
November 2, 2012 at 8:51 am
Politicians have said Sandy was not a hurricane when it came ashore. That way the homeowners insurance pays more.”
Not just the politicians. The NHC was at odds with itself. The Discussion group had pretty much evidenced that while big and strong, the hunter aircraft data and storm morphology had dropped Sandy below hurricane status as much as a day before it got to landfall, and that before landfall it had truly become a post-tropical cyclone. Now, PTCs can have higher windspeeds than the Saffir-Simpson categories and not be called hurricanes – they simply remain cyclones.
The Public Advisory group held up the viewpoint that even though the data was sparse, the sheer size made the case that there was likely cat 1 hurricane force winds somewhere in the storm. (these different viewpoints were actually in the published bulletins). The reason this was problematic for the NHC is built into the responsibility structure for advisorys and warnings. Once the storm goes post-tropical, the NHC drops out of the public advisory game and weather warnigs fall back to the NWS, which are local and not effectively co-ordinated.o a large scale. In short – the Public Advisory group kept the “hurricane” classification on the storm for a period after it became post-tropical in order to keep the integrated hurricane warning structure together.as it came ashore. After that, they could no longer support the storm because it now unequivocally became post-tropical, and out of their mandate. It was quite telling to follow the divergence of view in the public advisory bulletins, and the at-time contrary views being written into the Discussion reports. Sandy hadn’t really been a hurricane for the last 24-36 hours of its pre-landfall life, dumping its energy outwards, instead. It certainly had a low pressure core, but even it was fairly diffuse for most of its life.
The real problem is that we are too HOT (/sarcasm)
How foolish do Alarmists wanna be right now? This deserves a Friday Funny thread:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-if-you-threw-flash-mob-and-nobody.html
951 MB low off the coast of Alaska with a larger circulation than ‘Sandy’ and no one is talking about it! Very impressive looking.
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/geo/index.php?satellite=west&channel=ir4&coverage=nh&file=jpg&imgoranim=8&anim_method=flash
Over here in the UK, it is noticeable that, apart from the snow in W Virginia, the only media coverage has been on areas close to the water.
I assume, therefore, that the amount of damage more than a few miles inland is nothing exceptional.
Don’t forget the Storm of 1938 that devasted New England. Also back then they didn’t have the communication and warning systems.
Paul Homewood says:
November 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Over here in the UK, it is noticeable that, apart from the snow in W Virginia, the only media coverage has been on areas close to the water.
I assume, therefore, that the amount of damage more than a few miles inland is nothing exceptional.
You assume incorrectly. The damage in central NJ has been exceptional, extensive tree falls, power lines down and road blockages. My power went out at 5pm on Monday and came back on today (ahead of schedule), many here still without power. The unusual feature of this storm was its size and direction, most hurricanes here slide up the coast and we don’t get the full impact inland. This one approached from the east and made landfall exposing the NJ/NY coastline to sustained winds and storm-surge. A friend from Ohio told me that there were 15′ waves on lake Erie as the storm moved further inland. Many large trees here were ripped out of the ground like this one (at least 12 in our neighborhood alone):
http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/wpvi/cms_exf_2007/news/local/103112-IMAGE-sandy-Havertown-AP.jpg
Tim Folkerts says:
November 2, 2012 at 6:33 am
Caleb says:
November 2, 2012 at 9:26 am
@Folkerts
It doesn’t help when your rebuttal of the rebuttal has some significant flaws. You should rethink a few things.
You appear not to know that the tidal datum is an arbitrary thing and that the lowest astronomical tide is not necessarily 0 feet with reference to the tidal datum. In the case of The Battery in NYC, the tidal range is 7.5 feet, from 1.3 feet below the tidal datum to 6.2 feet above the tidal datum so the statement that Tides in New York vary roughly 6 feet between low and high tides is patently false.
Your hit two years in a row by hurricanes was demolished pretty promptly by someone else so overall your post did not contain much of any note.
I’m afraid you guys are on the wrong side of history. You will argue that this is all natural or climate sensitivity is low for ever. That’s why you aren’t ‘skeptics’. You are trying to argue against fairly basic laws of physics and you lost the scientific argument in about 1896. Now, with Sandy, you are losing the political argument too and Sandy may just have cost the Republicans the White House.
The Germans have a great word for this. It’s schadenfreude.
Monty says:
November 2, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Fairly basic physics that the warmer the planet, the less temperature difference between the poles and the tropics so hurricanes become fewer and weaker?
Decsribe the basic laws of physics that determine the difference between a natural hurricane and a AGW one.
By the way, I agree with you that we shouldn’t use the term ‘unprecedented’ unless it really is (and we can prove it). This is why it’s not a scientific term and I would be intrigued to hear if any scientists have actually used the term (rather than, say, journalists). However, whether a storm is as big or bigger than one in the past is utterly irrelevant. It’s the recurrence interval that is important.
By the way, to all the ‘skeptics’ who thinks we are going into a renewed glaciation (and there’s always one or two on every WUWT blog) may I suggest they aquaint themselves with the concept of orbital forcing? Reading Tzedakis and Berger and Loutre may also be instructive. Thanks.