From Tufts University , and the department of industrial strength grant funded worry, comes this “could” question coached in caveats:
Could Sandy happen again? Maybe, says Tufts geologist
Due to rising sea levels, smaller storms could produce significant flooding
MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass. – Almost a year after Hurricane Sandy, parts of New York and New Jersey are still recovering from billions of dollars in flood damage. Tufts University geologist Andrew Kemp sees the possibility of damage from storms smaller than Sandy in the future.
“Rising sea levels exacerbate flooding,” says Kemp. “As sea level rises, smaller and weaker storms will cause flood damage.” An assistant professor in Tufts’ Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Kemp co-authored a study on sea-level change close to New York that was published recently in the Journal of Quaternary Science.
Sandy hit New York as a team led by Kemp was researching sea-level change and flooding that had occurred in seven historically damaging hurricanes in New York since 1788. Last October, Sandy’s storm surge hit the coast at high tide, but storm and tidal conditions were not the only cause of the devastation, Kemp says. Seawaters off New York’s coast have risen 16 inches since 1778, the year of New York City’s first major recorded storm, his research shows.
To make this determination Kemp and his team studied salt-marsh sediments from Barnegat Bay in northern New Jersey, south of the tide gauge at Battery Park in New York. Using sediment cores, long cylinders drilled into the marsh floor that offer scientists a look back through time, they were able to reconstruct sea-level changes since 1788.
Kemp cites two factors for rising seas. One is the natural sinking of land called glacio-isostatic adjustment. A second factor, and one supported by the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), points to the melting of the ice-covered terrain of Greenland and Antarctic as well as the thermal expansion of ocean waters.
Looking forward, Kemp sees the possibility of storms less powerful than Sandy inflicting serious damage. He uses a basketball analogy. “It’s like playing basketball and raising the level of the court so that shorter and shorter people can dunk. It makes low lying property and infrastructure more vulnerable at a time when developers are pumping money into coastal cities and towns.”
Tufts University, located on three Massachusetts campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville, and Grafton, and in Talloires, France, is recognized among the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs across the university’s schools is widely encouraged.
==================================================================
Dr. Kemp, the basketball analogy fails miserably when the floor is sinking, Note the reference you made: “One is the natural sinking of land called glacio-isostatic adjustment.”
It was about 49 years ago that Hurricane Hazel made an even bigger mess than Sandy, before anybody even worried about climate change, sea level rise, or any number of other similar over-worries associated with “climate change”.
From Wikipedia:
================================================================
Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. After causing 95 fatalities in the US, Hazel struck Canada as an extratropical storm, raising the death toll by 81 people, mostly in Toronto. As a result of the high death toll and the damage Hazel caused, its name was retired from use for North Atlantic hurricanes.
Hazel affected Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York; it brought gusts near 160 km/h (100 mph) and caused $308 million (1954 USD) in damage. When it was over Pennsylvannia, Hazel consolidated with a cold front, and turned northwest towards Canada. When it hit Ontario as an extratropical storm, rivers and streams in and around Toronto, Ontario overflowed their banks, which caused severe flooding. As a result, many residential areas located in the local floodplains, such as the Raymore Drive area, were subsequently converted to parkland. In Canada alone, over C$135 million (2009: $1.1 billion) of damage was incurred.
The effects of Hazel were particularly unprecedented in Toronto, as a result of a combination of a lack of experience in dealing with tropical storms and the storm’s unexpected retention of power. Hazel had traveled 1,100 km (680 mi) over land, but while approaching Canada, it had merged with an existing powerful cold front. The storm stalled over the Greater Toronto Area, and although it was now extratropical, it remained as powerful as a category 1 hurricane. To help with the cleanup, 800 members of the military were summoned, and a Hurricane Relief Fund was established that distributed $5.1 million (2009: $41.7 million) in aid.
Hazel Storm path
In early October 1954, a tropical wave moved off the coast of Africa and was spotted on October 5, roughly 80 km (50 mi) east of the island of Grenada. Sufficiently organized to be deemed a hurricane, the original hurricane hunter wind measurement of 110 km/h (70 mph) soon increased to 160 km/h (100 mph) at the centre, with a forward speed of 16 km/h (10 mph).[1] Hazel moved westward and intensified from October 6 to October 9 in the Caribbean Sea without directly striking any land;[2] at one point, it was moving “practically parallel” to the Venezuelan coast.[3] After continuing on a westward track, it turned sharply to the north-northeast, heading for Haiti instead of Jamaica, contrary to meteorologists’ predictions.[4] On the whole, the storm proved to be very unpredictable, defying forecasts on multiple occasions.[2]
On October 11, Hazel crossed Haiti as a Category 2 hurricane. It had lost some strength because of its passing over peaks as high as 2,400 m (8,000 ft). After passing through the Windward Passage between the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, Hazel turned northwest toward the southeastern part of the Bahamas and East Coast of the United States, at a forward speed of about 27 km/h (17 mph).[5] Hurricanes are generally expected to lose power after going north of Florida, since the temperature of the water is lower;[6] however, by late October 14, just before it reached the Carolinas, hurricane hunter planes found the hurricane’s winds to have accelerated to 220 km/h (140 mph), making it a Category 4 storm, and its forward speed had increased to 48 km/h (30 mph).
================================================================
Then there’s this one, 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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_Storm_of_1962
Could Hazel happen again? Sure. Could the Ash Wednesday Storm happen again? No doubt. Could Sandy happen again? You betcha. Does climate change have anything to do with the odds of any of these recurring? Nope.
In fact the odds are better for a Sandy or Hazel like storm to strike when the tide is not at a peak. Had Sandy struck when the tide was low or even somewhere in the middle of the tide cycle, the caterwauling about sea level rise wouldn’t be nearly as loud. While I don’t disagree with Kemp’s statement of “Rising sea levels exacerbate flooding,”, we can also say “hurricanes at high tide exacerbate flooding”. The question comes down to which one had more effect, in the case of Sandy, it was the timing of landfall, high tide, and years of neglecting sea defenses; sea level rise was a minor player.
At 8.99 feet on top of the high tide, Sandy’s surge was almost twice that of its nearest rivals, which all fell between 4 and 5 feet.
![battery_water_level[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/battery_water_level1.jpg?quality=83)
Should we freak out about sea level in New York City? You be the judge: Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to history
See also: From the Scientific Urban Legend Department: ‘AGW Sea Level Rise Made Sandy More Destructive’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He cites 1778 as the first major recorded storm. There were storms in the 1600’s which flooded Staten Island. It should never have been populated. If they are only worried about sea level rise, they have their heads in the sand.
Well, on my cable provider one of the channels does have “Hazel” in reruns…
Gerald, that jumped out at me too… 1778 was New York’s first major recorded storm? From that point anything else was simply entertainment with no valid scientific information.
I forget exactly how the quote goes but someone once said, “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
In the context of CAGW, forgive me for amending it to, “Those who are ignorant of weather history are doomed to be alarmed by it repeating.”
(I’m sure someone can clean that sentence up. Feel free.)
Gunga Din said:
October 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm
I forget exactly how the quote goes but someone once said, “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
In the context of CAGW, forgive me for amending it to, “Those who are ignorant of weather history are doomed to be alarmed by it repeating.”
(I’m sure someone can clean that sentence up. Feel free.)
——————————————-
Here ya go:
WE’RE DOOMED!!!!!
Considering that the 9 downturns in the rate of sea level change in the 20th century (including sea level slightly falling, at below 0 mm/yr rise, during part of the 1960s-1970s global cooling scare) correspond to the 9 low points in solar cycles meanwhile, as illustrated in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg , while keeping in mind the apparent ending of the Modern Maximum and return soon towards Grand Minimum conditions not seen in centuries … within a decade, sea levels will most likely get seriously into a new trend of primarily outright falling (in reality at least, although activist-reported numbers may be a different matter).
Times of global cooling do lead to more mid-latitude storminess, though, like the last Little Ice Age was stormier than the Medieval Warm Period, as the equator never changes much in temperature but higher latitudes cool much (differing further from warm near-equator temperatures), increasing a temperature gradient driving convective heat transfer, driving convection.
Messr. Kemp & Horton: Sandy was no hurricane.
If I have the math right, 16 inches in 235 years is approximately 1.7mm/year or 0.67in/decade, part of which he admits is due to subsidence. How in the world can we ever find a way to adapt to such rapid changes?!
Sandy behaved in the way that it did because of global cooling.
Due to the quiet sun and more equatorward climate zones and jets the northward moving storm hit the polar air masses earlier than it would otherwise have done and was pushed westward instead of moving north eastward to join the mid latitude westerlies in the normal manner.
It was further invigorated by a flow of cold air coming from the north west out of Canada which increased the temperature differentials along the storm front.
It’s behaviour was a product of cooling not warming.
I was in New York the day before it hit as a passenger on the QM2. We left shortly before the port was closed after a hurried turnaround and went out into force 12 winds for 18 hours or so.
Ran away from it at 20 knots whilst everything else hove to. A great ocean going liner.
If it had turned north eastwards we would have had to put up with it as it followed us right across the Atlantic.
Fran took a similar path as Hazel, and was just as strong. Sandy was a near carbon copy of the 1991 “Perfect Storm” just closer to land.
People got paid for that?
Frankly getting bored of climate change stories as it ain’t happening. AW I think you are going to experience a huge drop in interest in AGW as its beginning to wear thin in all aspects. Maybe the arrest of Mann or a major legal action against the fraudsters might engender some interest again. It simply is too much me thinks but anyway good luck in your endeavours, The same thing will happen to all climate sites pro or anti in the coming months.
[Wrong. WUWT is doing better than ever. ~ mod.]
Also, pretty sure the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 tore that place up pretty good. If a replica of that hits in 2035…just wow.
“Tufts University,…
is(was) recognized among the premier research universities in the United States. … (of course,) when the (excellence) floor is sinking (almost anyone can be “premier”) … .(This is) called (grant)-io-isostatic adjustment.”
Mediocre. The new “excellence.”
Here is how the Ontario government of the day responded to an “extreme” event.
http://www.trca.on.ca/protect/water-management/flood-protection.dot
I bring this article up because it is very interesting both in relation to the the supposed sea level rise and this alarmist drivel shown in Tuffs article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24458799
“The whole car is being assembled with this kind of precision with the aid of a “surface table” – a super-flat, 7m-long slab of cast iron that weighs 10 tonnes.
The accuracy of the build is regularly checked using a Hexagon laser, which will measure the position of any part of the car, in three dimensions, to one millionth of a metre.
This has given us a bit of a problem, though, as the surface table (all 10 tonnes of it) keeps moving.
After a lot of checking, it would appear that the surface table, and the whole of our Technical Centre, is actually floating.
The ends of the table move up and down by a couple of millimetres or so with the tide. We’re only a few hundred metres from the River Avon and the tide in the river makes the floor (and the surface table, and therefore our chassis) go up and down very slightly. ”
Sorry the cut paste is bit long, but needed all of it make my point.
This what you get when real science is done, and the alarmist crowd is trying tell us that a supposed measure of 1.5 to 3mm in sea level is actual there and a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
For heavens sake the tide on a river is moving a building and a 10t surface table which are few hundred metres away FROM it couple of millimetres or so
If one divides 16 inches by 235 years, one gets about 1.7 mm/year, or the exact same rate measured during historical time. What’s the problem?
“Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635” (MattN at 3:06pm) — good point.
You do know, do you not, that if it weren’t for all the terrible things the Pilgrims did to the Indians it never would have happened. The Indians wanted to ban all cooking with fire and the cutting down any trees and to put up a toll booth at the end of everyone’s driveway to get some funds to “invest” in some pretty glass beads that would make the sea level go down if you just toss enough of them into it. But, noooOOOOoooo, the Pilgrims — refused — to — go — along. They said taxes were e-v-il. How can you say taxes are e-v-il when it is TO SAVE THE PLANET?!!! The Indians begged them on their knees. The Pilgrims just said, “Stuff a moccasin in it. We’ll think about building a sea wall and putting in a drainage system next summer. Now, sit down and have some more turkey and cranberry sauce.” Then, the Indians started drinking rum and that was the Pilgrims’ fault, too, and…………
#(:))
In other news, buildings built in Earthquake zone fall down in earthquakes if they were not built to modern building standards designed to minimize damage from Earthquakes.
The analogy is exact. Flooding, like earthquakes, is predictable. Building to prevent damage from flooding can be expensive but (like building to withstand earthquakes) is preferable to paying after the flood.
Clipe, and Harvey and James S., great points.
Stuart Lynne, I didn’t type fast enough — fine analogy. Precisely.
The only solution is to force people to move away from the coast…
to Ohio…no wait, they have snow and ice storms
to Calif….no wait, they have landslides, earth quakes, and fires
to Montana…fires, winter storms, and winds
to Colorado!…..fires, winds, and winter storms
to Tennessee…..tornadoes
…..is there any place that’s safe any more??
/snark
Hey, dear Moderator…. just curious, why are there “no public comments available for display” (right side bar)? Are all these comments visible only to me?? I’ve wondered about that before. Mine seem to be invisible about 75% of the time… . 😉
[Reply: I am getting the public comments. — mod.]
There is a tendency to remember the last thing you saw very well things in the past not so well, so they can sell Sandy as the worst ever. It always helps to have Sandy in a major media market in a highly populated area. How many people remember Floyd (1999)? It caused major flooding over a huge part of Eastern NC. Seems to me that if you live near the east coast or Gulf of Mexico, you may be subject to a hurricane every now and then, even if hurricane activity has been relatively quiet since 2005.
@ur momisugly Latitude – LOL.
You gotta love the way these people, who apparently are not aware of what actually has happened before, create hysteria over storms that are well within the realm of the expected. So much so that when I talk to insurance companies, and anyone that has seen me in the last 5 years know my “Philadelphia Story” which Sandy got close to ( the landfall has to be south of the mount of the Delaware bay, pushing the storm surge up the bay, while the water from heavy rains comes down the Delaware river). So the strategy of these agw academics is to prey on the ignorance of people to the fact that Sandy’s, Hazels ,etc should happen as a matter of natural course.
My father, who is a degreed meteorologist, for years when I was a kid, would pull out maps of Hazel and say, Joe, do you realize if this track occurred, but 200 miles further east, the mid Atlantic coast would be devastated? He would also talk about 1933, the short cut storm into Va beach ( he refers to the northwest track to the coast as the short cut, rather than the recurve arc of normal east coast storm). In both cases, 100-200 miles in the realm of the global pattern is nothing and knowledge of this should show any rational person what the atmosphere can, and should do, from time to time
NATURALLY