I think I know a practical reason for this, which I’ll cover in a post later, but I’d like readers to weigh in first.
From AGU:
Newfound rise of storm tides by almost a foot since 1844 adds to risk from sea-level rise
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Maximum water levels in New York harbor during major storms have risen by nearly two and a half feet since the mid-1800s, making the chances of water overtopping the Manhattan seawall now at least 20 times greater than they were 170 years ago, according to a new study. Whereas sea-level rise, which is occurring globally, has raised water levels along New York harbor by nearly a foot and a half since the mid-19th century, the research shows that the maximum height of the city’s “once-in-10-years” storm tide has grown additionally by almost a foot in that same period.
The newly recognized storm-tide increase means that New York is at risk of more frequent and extensive flooding than was expected due to sea-level rise alone, said Stefan Talke, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Portland State University in Portland, Ore. He is lead author of the new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The research also confirms that the New York harbor storm tide produced by Hurricane Sandy was the largest since at least 1821.
Tide gauge data analyzed in the study show that a major, “10-year” storm hitting New York City today causes bigger storm tides and potentially more damage than the identical storm would have in the mid-1800s. Specifically, Talke explained, there’s a 10 percent chance today that, in any given year, a storm tide in New York harbor will reach a maximum height of nearly two meters (about six and a half feet), the so-called “10-year storm.” In the mid-19th century, however, that maximum height was about 1.7 meters (about 5.6 feet), or nearly a foot lower than it is today, according to tide gauge data going back to 1844, he noted.
“What we are finding is that the 10-year storm tide of your great-, great-grandparents is not the same as the 10-year storm tide of today,” Talke said.
To get the data used in the study, Talke and a graduate student photographed hundreds of pages of handwritten hourly and daily tide gauge data going back to 1844 that is stored at the U.S. National Archives in College Park, Md. Back in Portland, Talke and his students entered the data into spreadsheets and adjusted the data where points were erroneous or missing, including using newspaper accounts of big storms to fill in some of the holes. The researchers then analyzed the data to calculate storm tide levels and look for trends, and compared the information with climate data.
The storm tide is the amount that water levels rise during a storm. It includes both the storm surge – the abnormal rise in water generated by the storm above the sea level – and the predicted astronomical tide. The rise in storm tide outlined in the recent study is in addition to the .44 meter (1.44 foot) rise in local sea level that has occurred since the mid-19th century in New York harbor.
Combining the newly calculated rise in storm tide with the rise in sea level that has taken place since the mid-1800s, the researchers found that today, waters can be expected to overtop the lower Manhattan seawall – 1.75 meters (5.74 feet) high — once every four to five years. In the 19th century, when both sea levels and storm tides were lower, water was expected to overtop the Manhattan seawall only once every 100 to 400 years, according to the paper.
Scientists have studied the question of increasing storm tides in the area before, but none have gone back as far as the current study, Talke said. Hourly storm tide records for New York harbor that are kept by federal agencies, like NOAA, only go back to the 1920s, he said.
In the paper, Talke and his colleagues suggest that the variability in storm tides in New York harbor over the past 170 years could be a result of multiple factors. About half of long-term change could be attributed to decades-long variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation, an irregular fluctuation of atmospheric pressure over the North Atlantic Ocean that has a strong effect on winter weather in Europe, Greenland, northeastern North America, North Africa, and northern Asia.
Longer-term trends could also be influencing the increase in storm tides over the past two centuries, according to the paper. The authors speculate that climate change and increasing global temperatures could be contributing to the increase in storm tides. There could also be local factors, like deepening of shipping channels around New York harbor, that could have affected storm tides in the area over the past 170 years, Talke said.
The study’s findings may indicate that “storm surges’ interaction with New York harbor has gotten larger so that in addition to sea level rise, the storm surges may have been enhanced,” said Chris Zervas, a scientist at NOAA’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services in Silver Spring, Md., who was not involved in the study. “For the latter part of the 1900s, [it shows] that the possibility of overtopping the seawall has increased quite a bit in addition” to sea-level rise, he added.
Having this long, continuous set of data enabled the scientists to tease out decades-long cycles and long-term increases that they may not be able to see with shorter data sets, Zervas and Talke said. Knowing that there has been an increase in storm tides and figuring out why the increase occurred could help scientists better predict what will happen in the coming decades and help cities mitigate future problems, Talke said.
“If it turns out to be a local reason, as has been suggested in some cases, there could be local solutions as well,” Talke said. “In some cases, we may be able to turn back the clock on that a bit.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.




“Adjusted?” “Filled in?” Use the data you do have, and get back to us. Even a press release not specifying the effect of created “data” on their results is so very far from good science. How would the results have changed without using numbers they did not have? What a travesty…
that’ll be subsidence then….and all their wailing and shrieking is blind faith.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/sea-level-isnt-rising-manhattan-is-sinking/
There is just not enough information. I know the effects of man made flood dangers, by poor dredging (see Britain 2014), having flood control (dikes etc) when at one time seawater would flood wetlands and then recede. This is not to me as a Dutchman a very well written or well based report , but what the heck there just as many people to scare to hell out off in the greater NY area as in all of Holland.
I don’t see much to get worked up about. These days I’m a bit more suspect of “adjustments” to data, but it isn’t anything new or restricted to climate science. And they do use the term “speculate” when discussing links to changing climate, which I think is fair.
Bottom line, between rising sea levels, subsidence, human changes (dredging & filling) and other factors, the risks associated with storm surges to NYC appears to be increasing. That’s good to know. Tells me NYC would be prudent to build higher sea walls and toughen up their infrastructure to flooding. Doesn’t tell me a thing about climate change.
Does this mean the West Side Highway will be under water?
One nice caveat is that the ‘once every 4 to 5 years’ will be quickly put to the test. Aside it was nice to see that they went back and reviewed records and used data rather than run a model!
The rivers flowing into the harbors and bays of Manhattan bring down tons of silt each year causing a raising of the seafloors and the shallowing is causing waves to be higher with the same back pressure as is seen from winds equal to 150 years ago. More dredging would likely correct some of this. I wonder which “wonder model” these green geniuses used this time?
No valid reference datum (i.e. floating comparison).
How many times was the pier-post with the tacked-on-ruler adjusted since mid-1800s or did it just ‘sink’ in the mud as the barnacles grew and added weight !
Epoch fail.
Ha ha
Seems they are not sure if the elevator is going up, or the shaft is going down.
Once again, cherry-picking and “filling-in-the-blanks” to get what they want, GRANT MONEY for more studies.
When was the seawall last rebuilt, or is it original?
Seattle is currently rebuilding their seawall, with no apparent height increase to compensate for the “rising seas” attributed to CAGW.
Anyone else old enough to remember the Gilligan’s Island episode when the Professor thought the island was sinking, but it turned out that Gilligan was moving the Professor’s measuring sticks?
http://www.tv.com/shows/gilligans-island/quick-before-it-sinks-10151/
@krs – it was on last night on METV. 😉
Whatever the cause, if flooding is likely, then local steps, such as dikes and protecting the subway system, should be taken
My thoughts are what changed have there been downstream of NY’s harbour? Was there low-lying land that stormsurges flooded, that are now concrete walls & wharfs, thus funnelling water higher up into the harbour?
The east coast subsidence is well documented. Build up the sea walls as the piers were in the 1930 s. You are behind schedule.
Most of Manhattan’s current sea front proprty is man-made land fill, consisting of anything at hand, including abandoned hulks and garbage. That such 19th century expedients are now subsiding shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Relatively small sample size, major city built on hodge podge of metamorphic bedrock interleaved with Quarternary and Pleistocene poorly consolidated moraine / moraine outwash / alluvium with all the attendant excavations, tunnels and other disruptions, plus, the well known innate sea level rise due to the long tail of the Great Melt, plus, the innate tectonic subsidence of a Passive Margin slowly moving outward from the mid oceanic spreading center.
krs says:
April 23, 2014 at 9:53 am
“Gilligan’s Island. Those poor people,….” – Mathesar
I actually like the idea of at least getting the available tidal data in a usable form. I think notions of local changes in the sea floor from dredging and silting deserve careful attention. Bottom line, how many feet do you need to add to the seawall to establish an acceptable risk? I was reading a little while ago about how the Dutch have reassessed their seawalls and because of potential losses are adding to their flood barriers – not because of Climate Change but the increased wealth and population they are trying to protect.
It will be worth it if it gets the UN out of the US
Self inflicted wounds if true. The entire New York Habour area has been changing due to landfill and siltation. Both will change the height of storm tides at a specific location. The water has to go somewhere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/17/nyc-denying-the-sea-and-hansens-sea-level-predictions/
“…. his students entered the data into spreadsheets and adjusted the data where points were erroneous or missing, including using newspaper accounts of big storms to fill in some of the holes. The researchers then analyzed the data to calculate storm tide levels and look for trends”
OMG more spreadsheet science for beginners.
At least they seem to be looking for other causes that kneejerk attribution to AGW.
I thought subsidence was a significant factor in that region.
Makes you wonder why the UN is spending billions in upgrades to their building in Manhattan when it is just going to be inundated.
One gets the impression that people would be up to speed on SLR if only they read WUWUT?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/28/freaking-out-about-nyc-sea-level-rise-is-easy-to-do-when-you-dont-pay-attention-to-history/
1. Are they still dredging the rivers and channels like they used to or is that now bad and not done anymore because of ecological reasons?
2. A lot of time islands and ports expand by just shoving earth out and building on it. That will subside with time. I’m guessing a certain amount of the area expanded that way.
3. What changes have happened in the over all water flow and distribution over the last 200 years? You can’t just change how water flows without consequences. You have to adapt to your changes.