Guest essay by Kip Hansen, St Thomas, USVI
The Claim:
Even if research shows that Hurricane Sandy was not “caused” by Global Warming, it is certain that sea level rise caused by anthropogenic global warming increased the resultant destruction from Sandy’s storm surge.
Example:
“ … sea levels continue to rise due to global warming. The picture here is very clear. And that means that every single hurricane that hits land will push seawater farther inland when it does so. Or as one scientist told me in the wake of Sandy, “There is 100 percent certainty that sea level rise made this worse. Period.” “ (footnote 1)
“Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period.” (footnote 7)
Background:
From the New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force Report to the Legislature (2010) — “Sea Level Rise–Causes and Projections : Local sea levels are affected by ocean currents, gravitational forces, prevailing winds, and rise and fall of the land mass. Within the coastal regions of New York State, the land mass is slowly sinking, with the exception of the Hudson estuary north of Kingston. This movement is a result of geological forces and impacts of human activity and development. It affects local, or relative, rates of sea level rise. “
“These projections are supported by empirical data documenting recent sea level rise in New York State. For example, gauges at the New York City Battery indicate that sea level in the 2000s is 4 to 6 inches higher than in the early 1960s” (footnote 8)
“Storm surge in the NYC–LI area can result from tropical storms and extratropical cycles. Hurricanes have directly hit NYC (Scileppi and Donnelly 2007), such as on 3 September 1821 (Ludlum 1963) and 25 August 1893 (National Hurricane Center 2008). The category-3 ( ; 110 kt; 1 kt ’ 0.5 m s 2 1 ) winds during the 1821 event flooded a large portion of southern Manhattan (Ludlum 1963), but at that time the NYC population was only ; 150 000. There have been no other direct hits by major hurricanes (greater than category 2) across NYC–LI since the 1938 ‘‘Long Island Express’’ (National Hurricane Center 2008). Hurricane Gloria (1985) was originally labeled as category 3 at landfall for Long Island but has since been reanalyzed as category 1 (C. Landsea 2008, personal communication). However, it is only a matter of time before another major hurricane will impact the NYC–LI area. “ (This statement proved to be prophetic – Hurricane Sandy hit NJ/NY on 29 October 2012)
“Sea level along New York’s coast has been rising at the rate of almost one foot per century for at least 100 years” (footnote 3)
(footnote 2 – the above four quotes are all from NYS Sea Level Risk Task Force Report to the Legislature 2010)
“The mean sea level trend [at the Battery, Manhattan Island, NY] is 2.77 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1856 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.91 feet in 100 years.” (footnote 6)
The following NOAA graphic shows the current trend of sea level rise for the Battery at 0-3 mm/yr, based on this same tide gauge.
This is in agreement with the Battery’s tide gauge long-term trend of 2.77 mm/yr both by data from NOAA and from Leatherman 1995.
Overall Global Sea Level Rise (Douglas 1991) gives 1.8 mm/yr for the 100 year trend, 1880 – 1980, based on Tide Gauges. This figure is generally accepted throughout the field, for example, Church and White found 1.7 mm/yr for 1870 – 2004 (footnote 5) [one sees figures ranging from 1.45 mm/yr to 1.8 mm/yr (1870-2004) based on tide gauges, and 2.9 to 3.4 mm/yr, based on the still short satellite data series (1993-2003)]. (footnote 11)
We can now look back now to the causes section of the NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force Report which told us that one factor in sea level change is “rise and fall of the land mass” – which refers both to normal subsidence (in which land sinks for some immediate cause – such as settling of coastal areas created by fill as has been reported recently in Norfolk, VA) and to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), which is “Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound, glacial isostasy, glacial isostatic adjustment) … the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period” (footnote 9).
The NYSSLRTF Report quoted above stated clearly that “Within the coastal regions of New York State, the land mass is slowly sinking”. But by how much? In his seminal 2007 paper on North American Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, which was based on GPS data, Giovanni Sella states “The uplift rates generally decrease with distance from Hudson Bay and change to subsidence (1 – 2 mm/yr) south of the Great Lakes. “ (footnote 4) In plain English, the coastal areas of New York, including NY City, much of coastal New England and areas to the south are sinking at a rate ranging from 1 to 2 mm/yr due to the effects of GIA. To be clear here, while GIA normally refers to land masses rising, in the area concerned, coastal NY, GIA has caused the local land mass to subside or sink.
Assumptions for Analysis:
None of the numbers — facts and figures — contained in the quotes above are controversial — they represent the mainstream views on sea level rise and GIA subsidence, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in the area of concern, New York State, and certainly apply to New York City and surrounds as affected by Hurricane Sandy.
All quoted figures are referenced in footnotes (linked directly to source materials where possible) and come from open source (non-pay-walled) peer-reviewed journal papers and government agency web sites.
I take it as a given that, for the purposes of this discussion, we can all agree that sea level change is an entirely LOCAL issue. Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge and resulting damages therefrom depend ONLY on local sea levels relative to local land mass. NY City’s tunnels were not flooded by any putative sea level rise in Sydney, Australia or the South Sea Islands. (There is another discussion about Global Sea Levels, but this is not it.)
This is a common sense, rough-estimate hypothesis-testing exercise, not a proof of anything – so we only need reasonably accurate and readily agreed upon approximations. Therefore, for our “back of the envelope” calculations, I will use the following:
a) Time period = 50 years (1960-2010) – because this is the time period used by the NY State SLR Task Force (footnote 2)
b) For relative sea level rise in NY City, I will use NYSSLRTF 2010’s “4 to 6 inches higher than in the early 1960s”. (footnote 2) This is the same (+/-) as the tide gauge data from NOAA for the Battery, Manhattan Island, NY. It is the longest tide gauge time series in the US — beginning in 1856 and running to the present day. (footnote 6) (footnote 10)
c) For Global sea level rise, I will use Church and White’s 1.7 mm/yr as it covers 1870 – 2004 (Douglas 1991 found 1.8 mm/yr for 1880- 1980). (footnote 5)
d) For subsidence at NY City, I will use the mean of 1.5 mm/yr but give as range extremes both 1 and 2 mm/yr. (footnote 4)
The following section gives the elementary school level mathematics (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division only – no statistical methods or analysis).
Calculations:
Start with NYSSLRTF’s “at the New York City Battery indicate that sea level in the 2000s is 4 to 6 inches higher than in the early 1960s.” As our other numerical quantities are all in millimeters, as is common in science, we will use these numbers: 4 inches = 101.6 mm (let’s use 100 for ease…it changes nothing). 6 inches = 152.4 mm (let’s use 150, same reason) , the mean is 5 inches which is 127 mm (we’ll use 125). Note that this is well within keeping with NOAAs trend of 2.77 mm/yr for the entire length of the Battery’s tide gauge record.
NYSSLRTF’s stated sea level change at the Battery, 1960-2010, is in mm:
plus 125 mm. (mean of 100 to 150). Note that this is approximately 2.5 mm/yr over the 50 year period. If we were to increase this figure to 138 mm, it would agree precisely with NOAAs 2.77 mm/yr—instead we use the figures from the NYSSLRTF Report for consistency.
For subsidence take 1.5 mm/year (halfway between 1 and 2 mm/yr) times 50 years == 75 mm or 2.95 inches of subsidence. This number has a negative sign, as it is land sinking (as opposed to the sea rising). The Battery has apparently sunk approximately 3 inches since the 1960s.
As the New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force has estimated that “sea level in the 2000s is 4 to 6 inches higher than in the early 1960s” and we find that approximately 75 mm or 2.95 inches of that was due to the land sinking (GIA effects only — nothing included here for subsidence caused by the settling of land created by fill), that leaves us with:
Or, in pictures: (footnote 12)
To cover all the bases, let’s include a grid of both variables, Relative SLR and GIA:
This grid shows that the mean value (highlighted) at about 2” of absolute sea surface rise over our 50 year time period at the Battery.
Then using the long term, pre-AWG 100-year trend for Global Sea Level Rise of 1.7 mm/yr, we would expect, for 50 years (1960-2010): 50 times 1.7 mm = 85 mm (or 3.35 inches) of sea level rise due to this inexorable rise of the sea as the world works its way out of the last ice age
Subtracting the expected geologically-caused sea level rise from the actual sea level rise experienced should result in a remainder that would be the portion of the absolute sea level rise that could be attributed to recent Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Thus we now can calculate:
plus 50 mm attributable to rising sea level minus 85 mm expected from long-term general worldwide sea level trends equals minus 35 mm or 1.37 inches less than expected from the geologically-caused sea level rise trend, leaving less than nothing to be attributed to AGW-induced sea level rise.
All of this in pictures:
Using our grid of two variables:
Note that only under the Highest Relative SLR/Lowest Subsidence Rate scenario does this result even become positive – and then only by 15 mm/0.6 inches.
This brings us the somewhat surprising conclusion that the relative sea level change at the Battery in NYC which can be attributed to Anthropogenic Global Warming (by any of its commonly used names) is probably less than zero and certainly not significant. Rather, sea level change at the Battery, when calculating with the means of the variable ranges, is approximately 35 mm less than would be normally expected if the sea level change at the Battery was simply following the long-term slow and gradual rise seen to have begun worldwide at least 150 years ago (long before AGW is posited to have begun). It is not suspected that AGW caused this deficit.
Summary:
At the Battery, Manhattan, NYC over the period 1960-2010, we found less than zero mm/inches of sea level rise to be attributed to post-1960 AGW. With admittedly rough calculations, it appears that NY City has seen “4 to 6 inches” – 100 to 150 mm — of sea level change over the last 50 years, which is approximately equivalent to “8 inches in 100 years”, but over 3 inches — 85 mm of the relative change — was due to subsidence (land sinking) as a result of GIA. Subtracting the subsidence from the relative rise leaves only 2 inches — 50 mm –of rise attributable to the sea actually getting higher – which is less than the 3.3 inches — 85 mm — which would be expected from long-term pre-AGW (150 year) worldwide positive sea level rise trends, the trend agreed by all not caused by AGW, but attributed to geological causes, usually to the ocean water warming and expanding after the end of the last Ice Age.
Bottom Line:
The claim is a “Scientific Urban Legend” – made up of the TRUE and obvious fact that any positive change in local average relative sea level will make any storm surge “worse” – by the simple effect of the relative water level being higher by whatever amount — blended with the FALSE assumption/assertion that some or all of the oft cited 8 inches of Global Sea Level rise over the last 100 years had actually taken place in or around NY City and that this sea level rise had been caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming.
At the Battery, Manhattan, NYC, there has been, so far, no significant sea level rise attributable to AGW. Period. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that AGW-induced sea level rise contributed in any real world sense to the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge.
EPILOGUE:
None of the above means that NY City and surrounding areas should quit worrying about sea level rise. The sea is rising, has been rising, and will continue to rise. The coastal areas of NY and NJ are sinking and will continue to sink. Both of these conditions will continue until geological conditions change to stop them—perhaps in millennia. The recent warming of the atmosphere may yet cause discernible additional sea level rise at the Battery. NY/NJ should plan for a continued sea level rise range of 1.7-2.8 mm/yr for the foreseeable future and take positive steps to mitigate the known dangers. So far, it simply has had nothing to do with AGW.
1 – Here Comes the Story of No Hurricanes by Chris Mooney | Fri Sep. 6, 2013 6:55 AM PDT
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/hurricane-season-ipcc-sandy
2 – New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force Report to the Legislature — Dec 31, 2010 http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf
3 – NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force Report 2010 cited this to:
Leatherman, S.P., R Chalfont, E. Pendleton, S. Funderbunk and T. McCandless. 1995. Vanishing Lands , Sea Level, Society, and Chesapeake Bay. Univ. of Maryland Laboratory for Coastal Research & US Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office
http://www.fws.gov/slamm/vanishinglandssealevelsocietyandchesapeakebay2.pdf
4 – Observation of glacial isostatic adjustment in ‘‘stable’’ North America with GPS — Sella et al GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L02306, doi:10.1029/2006GL027081, 2007
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/2006GL027081.pdf
5 – http://users.coastal.ufl.edu/~arnoldo/ocp6050/homeworks/douglas91.pdf also “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise” Church and White 2006 http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalResources/ClimateChange/Documents/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
6 – data from NOAA http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm
text from http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/01/hurricane-sandy-and-sea-level-rise-in-ne
7 – “Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period.” —By Chris Mooney | Thu Nov. 8, 2012 http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/11/climate-change-made-sandy-worse-period The scientist that makes most of the sea level claims is Dr. Ben Strauss who “holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Princeton University, an M.S. in Zoology from the University of Washington, and a B.A. in Biology from Yale University” and is a paid employee of Climate Central, a AGW advocacy organization.
8 – NYSSRLTF Report cited this as:
Colle, B.A., K. Rojowsky, and F. Buonaiuto. 2010. New York City storm surges: Climatology and an analysis of the wind and cyclone evolution. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 49 : 85 – 100. Pub ID# 3772
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JAMC2189.1
9 – Definition from the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
10 – The NOAA reported sea level trends at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm and in the graph at
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
are relative sea levels – where the sea surface is in relation to a certain point on the land mass. There are no adjustments made, as they would be irrelevant. So, in plain English, the relative sea level change is the sea surface movement (up or down) plus the land mass movement (up or down). This is the sea level change you would see with your eyes if you were there.
11 – Although Church and White arrived at a figure of 1.77 mm/yr, CSIRO cites Church 2011 for uncertainty bars but states that the graph shown indicates “an average rate of rise of about 1.6 mm/yr over the 20th Century” rather than Church’s finding of 1.77 mm/yr. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
12 – For our cartoon pictures, we assume that the US Geological Survey Team installed a brass reference marker at the 1960 Mean Sea Level position on our imaginary sea wall at the Battery and placed a reference tide gauge marked in inches alongside, all for our convenience.
13 – h/t for the format of this article to snopes.com
# # # # #
I think an obvious omission to your calculations is the effect of the stone, steel, concrete, glass glacier that has been growing, particularly during the 20th Century over Manhattan. How much does a building weigh? I think this would be a fascinating calculation and it could be extrapolated to all coastal cities of any size. Its materials are about 2.5 times the weight of ice. Possibly an ultra precise level survey between cities along a coast would show a small amount of sinking centred on cities
Regardless of subsistence and other geological changes, flooding has to be worse with additional sea level rise. Logic.
you have got to let the alarmists give us something to laugh at. Sea level is one of many laughable bloomers.
Yes, but if global warming is not to blame, that would mean that the politicians had failed to prepare properly for an otherwise predictable event………………………………..oh!
As an engineer working in NYC, often for NYC clients, I am happy to see this urban legend dissected so thoroughly. I’ve been aware of the sea level rise in NYC due to tectonic rebound for more than twenty years, and the claims made regarding Sandy and AGW induced SLR are absurd. Your many references to publications are welcome as well!
Pippen Kool says: “Logic.”
It may be logic, but it also misses the point of this article by a country mile.
Care to try again?
Long Beach Island New Jersey, where I use to summer as a boy, was hit badly by Sandy and lot of people blame AGW. But they seem to forget the 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm which was much more destructive all up the Eastern seaboard. The Ash Wednesday Storm cut the island in a few places, Sandy did not. Selective memory play a big part as the above article shows.
The Ash Wednesday Storm: “In New Jersey alone, an estimated 45,000 homes were destroyed or greatly damaged. In New York, on Long Island, communities such as Fire Island were decimated; 100 homes there were destroyed. Wave heights reached 12 m (40 ft) by the shore of New York City.”
I have never seen this storm mentioned in any article talking about Sandy including on this web page. It should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_Storm_of_1962
If you mix enough different start dates and pick your estimates of subsidence and glacial rebound rates carefully I suppose it may be possible to elide the 250mm or ~10 inches of global rise in see level during the last century into insignificance.
But the reality is that the local sea level rise is always a combination of the global rise and the much smaller local effects. Any rise in sea level that is greater than or less than the ten onches from AGW is due to local factors.
But local factors only modify the global rise, not replace it.
Kip: I believe you may be confusing the issue of local sea level rise (SLR) and global SLR. Global SLR is caused by the expansion of warmer ocean water and the melting of ice caps and glaciers. Global SLR is modified in different places such as NYC by GIA and other geological changes and by changes in winds and air pressure. (The AMO may have an impact tide gauges.) The appropriate measure of how much global warming contributed to global SLR is an appropriate measure of how much climate change contributed to Sandy. Of course, it is hard to separate SLR in the first half of the century (presumably caused mostly be the end of the LIA) from anthropogenic SLR mostly in the second half of the century. So I’d say anthropogenic climate change contributed about 6 inches, which IS minimal given a storm surge of about 10 feet.
We don’t know when sea level began rising at the Battery at the rate shown on your graph, but it probably began with the end of the LIA. We are certain that SLR hasn’t been occurring at this rate for the last millennium; a SLR of roughly 10 feet over this period would be known. Sea level probably dropped some during the LIA, but geological changes in coast lines make it difficult to measure changes over millennia. The SLR seen around 1900 was natural and not caused by GHGs, but this amount of SLR isn’t a “normal” variation that persists for millennia. It is caused by climate change: the end of the LIA, the end of an ice age, or anthropogenic climate change.
I read that New York Battery is a landfill. Does this make subsidence worse?
Pippen Kool says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:31 am (Edit)
Regardless of subsistence and other geological changes, flooding has to be worse with additional sea level rise. Logic.
————————————————————-
Quite. However reading the article it seems that any AGW contribution was negligible. This seems to be the case so often with Man Made CO2, the effects are trivial.
Reply to Gary Pearce: Yes, you are absolutely correct — there may be additional subsidence due to both development and the fact that much of Manhattan is built on fill –> see Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to historyat http://preview.tinyurl.com/kg3pz8u . Much of the central spine of Manhattan Island is solid bedrock, however. Much of Sandy’s damage was done in areas of Statan Island and Long Island, where neighborhoods had been built on what are essentially (historical) mudflats.
Reply to Pippen Kool: Yes, correct. That is the true part “…. the TRUE and obvious fact that any positive change in local average relative sea level will make any storm surge “worse” – by the simple effect of the relative water level being higher by whatever amount.”
Reply to Lichanos: Thank you. Perhaps you know of some more current research, using modern highly accurate GPS data, for subsidence specifically in and around NYC?
Wasn’t the max swell caused by storm swell plus 20 year exceptional (predictable) high tide about 13 ft?
And they write a paper about 35 mm ?
“AGW certainly made it worse. ” Deception by omission.
WTF, period.
Pippen Kool says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:31 am
That’s correct. But exactly how would one differentiate between ‘extra’ flooding caused by a high tide in conjunction with a storm arrival?, and then of course, the wind (speed) driven issue?, etc, etc.
It is indeed logical to suggest that a few inches of general sea level rise would contribute to an overall increased flooding risk – but that increase in risk is relatively insignificant compared to the actual natural sea level tidal variation and timing thereof (i.e. spring or neap tides) coupled with the natural wind speed and storm actual passage time duration, rainfall, etc, etc. Obviously a storm arriving during a low tide would have far less flood risk than one arriving just at high tide. In the context of tidal variation a 10ft tidal level change being altered by a few inches is not really going to be significant in terms of the other factors involved. We see forecasts where they concentrate on when high tide is due as well as the storm arrival/passage, wind speeds and rainfall?
In the context of a storm driven sea (as being the case here) – a few inches of general sea level rise is somewhat moot as a major contribution IMHO. (Think of big waves crashing down in a storm, and you’ll get the picture)
Put it another way, are the flood defences designed on MHWL or MHWL plus storm surge? If you agree it is the latter, and you agree that we have probably not observed or ‘recorded’ the worst storm ever (think about it) – how would you design your flood defenses? You cannot possibly add in all the variables to ensure no flooding. Typically, assumptions like 100 year events, and max wind/tides can be used to ESTIMATE design requirements. On an actual, real life, say, 10 to 15 foot storm surge, how much do you think a few inches of general sea level rise is gonna make to the final outcome of your design???
Reply to Frank (September 19, 2013 at 7:15 am): This article is about LOCAL RELATIVE sea level rise — measured at the Battery. See the NOAA graph at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 which clearly shows the relative SLR at the Battery, since 1856, both numerically and graphically. There is no physical or logical reason to assume that local relative SLR, at the Battery, from 1890-1960 is caused by recovery from the Little Ice Age, or the last real ice age, and SLR from 1960-2010 is caused by AGW. There is no reason to believe that the long-term trend prior to 1960, a geological phenomena, should stop and AGW take over.
Your “I’d say anthropogenic climate change contributed about 6 inches” would be 100% (or more) of the SLR at the Battery for 1960-2010 according to the New York State Sea Level Task Force Report to the Legislature (2010).
Reply to Jimbo (September 19, 2013 at 7:16 am): It is Battery Park that is entirely landfill. Much of the periphery of Manhattan is landfill. See the animation at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/nyc_manhattan_sl_animation.gif .
I should add as a supplement to my previous post – that of course, it follows that any sea level rise (even if caused by AGW) is inconsequential at the scales we are talking about – and any direct blame on AGW for the flooding is somewhat crass! Maybe in a few hundred years time, when sea levels are another few feet higher we could objectively point the finger – BUT only if we can say that SLR is due to AGW in the first place – which we can’t !!
Reply to izen (September 19, 2013 at 7:09 am): This article is about Local Relative Sea Level at the Battery, Manhattan, NYC. There are many discussions about Global SLR, but this is not one of them. Nonetheless, perhaps you could share with us your source for this: “the ten inches [of global SLR] from AGW”.
Your Title “Mixture Of True And False Information” and the example given
Example:
“ … sea levels continue to rise due to global warming. The picture here is very clear. And that means that every single hurricane that hits land will push seawater farther inland when it does so. Or as one scientist told me in the wake of Sandy, “There is 100 percent certainty that sea level rise made this worse. Period.” “
This is another of classical propaganda methods being used by parties interested in promoting global warming. Another blog listed 22 commonly used techniques, this is technique number 3.
3. Misinformation. This works best if you are subtle but the main idea is to twist information to your own ends. A common use of this is in movie advertising, where if the movie is a real dog, publicists can selectively take positive comments from bad reviews and create the illusion that the film is better than it actually is. This sort of thing can land you in court with well-financed reviewers but twisting information to better suit your goals works if you can do it convincingly and not get caught by publicists or lawyers.
The 22 techniques are here http:/www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20130826.aspx
This is an excellent article that documents the relative sea level to adjoining land mass.
Regarding Sandy which was not a Hurricane when it struck New Jersey, the reason there was so much flooding is that the area was already flooded due to a lingering North East Storm and Sandy lingered more than most Hurricanes and piled more coastal waters on top of an already flooded region.
It disturbs me that those who are hawking the mantra of more frequent and more severe storms ignore the fact that Sandy was piled on top of a lingering NE storm. In fact some of the worst storms causing flooding and coastal damage have been NE Storms probably because they linger and push water ashore day after day. The details of the 1962 NE storm are outlined below
http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/storm-warning.html
“What made it so spectacular was its very slow pace, a strong storm moving slowly up the coast with a persistent onshore flow of winds from the Northeast,” says Robinson. “What that did was just push water up toward the coast and into the back bays and onto the beaches. Before it could all drain out, there was another high-tidal event. It was like putting a fan in your bathtub and pushing the water all in one direction for three days.”
“While towns from Sandy Hook to Cape May had damage, the worst havoc seemed to befall LBI, which for a time split into three pieces—freshly carved inlets rushing from Barnegat Bay to the ocean in Harvey Cedars in the north and Holgate in the south. Margaret Buckholtz is still amazed at what she saw when she reached the island to check on her father as the storm was finally subsiding on its third day.”
Sandy came on top of a similar storm.
My link didn’t work; I am trying again. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20130826.aspx
Not just Battery Park City, pretty much everything that touches water. And not just NYC, but in cities all around the World.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/nyc_manhattan_sl_animation.gif
Makes you wonder just how they go about measuring sea level from a major city keeping a straight face.
Reply to Retired Engineer John (September 19, 2013 at 8:11 am): The Urban legend example is from “Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period.” — By Chris Mooney | Thu Nov. 8, 2012 http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/11/climate-change-made-sandy-worse-period — which you might find amusing.
Sandy was not a hurricane at landfall. Catcracking is correct.
The National Hurricane Center reports wind speeds estimated from aircraft.
Aircraft over-estimate the surface wind speeds. The NHC has developed a tendency to emphasize “gust” speeds. Hurricane speeds are not defined by “gusts” but by sustained surface speeds.
Actual sustained wind speeds measured by surface stations and offshore buoys all show that maximum sustained winds at the peak of Sandy were 25 meters per second at two offshore buoys. Land speeds were less. The threshold defining hurricane winds is 33 meters per second. Most of the sustained wind speeds along the coast show data of about 20 meters per second.
Photos and video of the storm show damage consistent with wind speeds of a tropica storm of winds at 20 meters per second. Tidal surge caused most of the damage reported by the hysterical media.
This has happened before, the NHC over-estimated the winds speeds of Isaac. Actual data recorded by surface stations and off-shore buoys show that Isaac was not a hurricane at landfall.
Anyone can see the data recorded by off-shore buoys by going to the NDBC website.
Off topic, admittedly, but referring to the ‘Example’ above, why do Americans say “Period” to end some sentences. The sentence itself should indicate that no more needs to be said (if required). See how better the ‘examples’ look…
“There is 100 percent certainty that sea level rise made this worse.”
“Climate Change Made Sandy Worse.”
The term ‘Period’ is redundant. It adds nothing to the sentences and is therefore superfluous. Sorry, but the English do find it quite annoying.
Thanks Kip, that is wild that people spin and keep spinning until reality is badly abused.