Claim: Odds of storm waters overflowing Manhattan seawall up 20-fold, new study shows

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.

water level data

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.

tide graphic

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.

tide data

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.”

notebook sketch

 

 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
george e. conant
April 23, 2014 2:20 pm

I saw a remarkable thing one clear sunny late autumn day some 20 years ago. I am not sure which bridge it was spanning the Hudson river , I am thinking the Bear Mountain Bridge about 25 miles north of Manhattan. I saw what appeared to be a huge vertical fissure running up the west face of the mountain cliffs. These fissures had many horizontal steel cables of the sort used for major suspension bridges bolted with enormous iron pins to either side of the fissure. Again this was some time ago, but I remember thinking to myself “Holy Sht, Manhattan must be pulling on the land mass all the way up here!” I will be very pleased if anyone else has seen this construct, or was I seeing things…..

Latitude
April 23, 2014 2:45 pm

“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.”
“September 3 marks the 190th anniversary of the Hurricane of 1821, which saw flooding and destruction in the growing metropolis. In less than an hour a thirteen-foot storm surge deluged the city”
….see previous post for links

April 23, 2014 2:48 pm

philjourdan says:
April 23, 2014 at 9:49 .
Seems they are not sure if the elevator is going up, or the shaft is going down.
Thanks for the laugh, just wondering who is getting the shaft?
bernie 1815 I read the same thing . They were going to built a line of new dunes just inside the 12 mile limit, backfill the diked in land farm it and develop it and move the 12 mile limit out again , as a Dutchman, sounds like a plan to me wow in a few decades we can bike across to England!!!
The article was in one of the A’dam’s news papers, I think it was dated early April!

u.k.(us)
April 23, 2014 3:07 pm

kenw says:
April 23, 2014 at 1:59 pm
“Those of us with a bit more experience in these matters know the value of marshes, wetlands, tide pools and other such features that have surely been eliminated over time in NYC.
Houston remembers Ike.”
=========================
Got anything more than platitudes ?
Please expand upon your “bit more experience”, and enlighten us.
Memories might be short.
Surely.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark
April 23, 2014 3:59 pm

My $0.02 worth:
One of my nerdier hobbies is to check out old photographs, drawing and maps of where I live (opposite side of the Hudson river).
On the NJ side, A good portion of the southern part of Jersey City (from Paulus Hood on down) was salt marsh. Hoboken used to be just an island surrounded by salt marsh. A lot of the land on the Jersey side didn’t exist back in the 1820’s. It came about later and land was extended out into the Hudson to accommodate the building of railroads, ports, housing, and factories,. Not enough land? Just make more!
Same thing happened on the New York side. Battery Park area didn’t really exist before all the fill was dumped (from excavating the first WTC) there. A number of islands are also man made (most of Governor’s Island for example).
Could the storm surges have gotten worse because there is a lot less marsh other other areas o take up the surge?

DesertYote
April 23, 2014 4:51 pm

I should have stopped reading after “assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Portland State University in Portland, Ore”

April 23, 2014 4:55 pm

“Sea level in the New York City metropolitan area has been rising between 2.2 and 3.8 cm (0.86-1.5 in) per decade for over a hundred years, as recorded on tide gauges. This includes a contribution of 0.86-1.1 cm (0.34-0.43 in) per decade from regional subsidence, predominantly due to glacial isostatic effects.” http://seaandskyny.com/2011/05/26/rising-waters-and-coastal-floods-living-with-sea-level-rise-in-nyc-part-22/
Sea level at the New York tide gauge (The Battery) has risen 426mm in 157 years, a rate of 271mm/century (11″). Of that, 100mm/century (4″) is due to subsidence from glacial isostatic effects, so measured sea level rise (11″) minus subsidence (4″) leaves 7″/century, not much following the drop in sea level during the Little Ice Age. The New York tide gauge record begins in 1856, just at the end of the Little Ice Age (1450-1850AD).
“(New York) is no stranger to tropical cyclones, in spite of its northerly location. A hurricane struck the city in 1821, producing a surge of 13 feet in 1 hour that flooded lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street. In 1893, another hurricane submerged southern Brooklyn and Queens, erasing a small barrier island off the Rockaways. During the 20th century, the “Long Island Express” (1938), hurricane Donna (1960), and the weaker hurricane Gloria (1985) created extensive damage on nearby Long Island and in New Jersey. Even extra-tropical winter storms, such as the nor’easter of December, 1992, can result in widespread flooding of low-elevation neighborhoods and seriously disrupt ground and air transportation.”
New York sea level fell 4mm from 1996 (7130mm) to 2013 (7124mm). In contrast, the New York City Panel on Climate Change experts using 7 Global Circulation Models (GCMs) and 3 IPCC emissions scenarios estimated that during the period 1996-2013, sea level would have risen 20mm (0.8″). The expert projection was for New York sea level increase of over one meter (39’4″) by 2100. The experts must be expecting a big speeding up very soon, because so far they have wasted 14 years with nothing happening that would suggest their 2100 estimate is correct.
Besides isostatic effects, subsidence in highly developed urban coastal areas is also influenced by pumping of groundwater, blocking of siltation and increasing river flow rates by building levees and compaction of previously deposited silt, and erosion from the resulting loss of barrier islands, and organic decomposition resulting from changed surface land use.
The Global Climate Models former Mayor Bloomberg’s experts used didn’t include subsistence factors, and only looked at sea level rise based on estimates of thermal ocean expansion and projected ice-melt. Since other recent studies have shown no increase in ocean temperature (a study of my own of six West Coast cities [San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Victoria, and Vancouver] shows an average sea level decrease of 3″ since 1983), and a study of almost 500 glaciers showed that their rate of retreat 1850-1950 was higher than after 1950.
I’m sure all of this would be good news to panicked New Yorkers, but all they will get is a steady diet of panic from the media. The simple truths of science will be cherry picked to paint a picture of a climate-doomed future.

April 23, 2014 6:33 pm

and adjusted the data where points were erroneous or missing, including using newspaper accounts of big storms to fill in some of the holes.

But I can also think of other reasons why. Mainly urbanization. Areas that used to be meadow or marsh would absorb a lot of the rise and now it is all walled in and the water can’t spread out. It gets channeled into the harbor and up the rivers now with concrete “banks” in many areas.

Andyj
April 23, 2014 7:50 pm

It’s well mapped how Manhattan has expanded into the sea. Here’s a pearler if anyone would like to see 🙂 (H/T to this wonderful site)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/nyc_manhattan_sl_animation.gif?w=640
And at an apparent 2.77mm/yr sea level rise. OMFG. They’re all about to drown!

bw
April 23, 2014 9:35 pm

Plenty of photos of the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge towers in the 1870s. Water levels are very little changed today compared to those photos. Note that the local tidal ranges for New York harbor are around 5 feet, but up to 7 feet depending on the time of the photo.
Another water level reference is Bedlows Island, now called Liberty Island. Plenty of photos of construction of the Statue showing a pre-existing sea wall. The same sea wall exists today, but no obvious increase in sea level. The same caveat regarding daily tide changes here.
Also, Sandy was not a hurricane, as has been covered many times.

April 23, 2014 11:46 pm

I’ve long been curious about the Battery Park real estate formed by dumping rubble from the WTC. From the bush in Oz it’s hard to find out the details. My understanding is that the mouth of the Hudson was narrowed by up to 700 feet. True? Or true only in part? False?
I can tell you this: Sydney, unlike NY, is not a low-lying metropolis in a hurricane belt. But if anybody in the last fifty years had suggested infilling even a tiny fraction of our massive harbour the whole population would have screamed.
My questions about Battery Park (provided what I have heard is true): Were the responsible parties ever prosecuted? Weren’t there state, federal or maritime authorities with a say? Are there any individuals now prominent in NY government and/or business who favoured or profited from the development? Are any of these people the same ones who are now keen to attribute the flooding to AGW?
I understand that there has been bad luck and bad bungling in the past. Nobody is perfect. But to deliberately narrow a river mouth to make more low lying real estate in a notorious hurricane belt? It’s enough to make you doubt the sophistication of New Yorkers, and I know what a shocking statement that is for some. They had the experience of 1935…and still dumped rubble in the mouth of the Hudson? Whew!
I am one very curious outsider.

Don K
April 23, 2014 11:52 pm

FWIW, the tidal gauge data for the Battery 1856-present with a gap in the 1890s is available on line at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 I believe that data from other NYC area gauges is available from links at that site, but I didn’t check to be sure.

April 24, 2014 6:33 am

I just believe that Global warming is being used as an excuse to do nothing and just blame emissions for doing nothing. There is historical evidence on NYC flooding due to rare events in the past and yet we see nothing being done to stop flooding from occurring again. If the are worried then they should be building a levee system to stop the water from flooding the city, but nothing like that looks to be even being proposed.

Weather Dave
April 24, 2014 9:56 am

Since the Hudson River feeds into NY Harbour has anyone bothered to note the status of said River at the time? Abnormal or High Rainfall perhaps upstream?

Jimbo
April 24, 2014 10:20 am

I see 1821 in the above post. What happened in 1821?

1821 HURRICANE
Reaching the City on September 3, 1821, the storm was one of the only hurricanes believed to have passed directly over parts of modern New York City. The tide rose 13 feet in one hour and inundated wharves, causing the East River to converge into the Hudson River across lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street. However, few deaths were attributed to the storm because flooding was concentrated in neighborhoods with far fewer homes than exist today.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/sea-level-isnt-rising-manhattan-is-sinking/

Editor
April 24, 2014 10:24 am

This is a most curious paper. They make an odd claim. They say that the storm surge in NYC has gone up by 2.5 feet since the mid 1800s.
However, we have actual tidal data for the period. Since the mid-1800s, the RELATIVE sea level at the Battery in NYC has gone up by only one and a half feet.
Now, it’s possible that the storm surges have increased. If so, it’s likely from siltation, because the V-shaped nature of the New York harbor area means the resulting surge is dependent on the bottom geometry. But I’d need a lot more data before I bought into the story …
Next, despite the 2.5 foot rise claimed in the lede, further on it says:

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.

So in that quote, despite the 1.5 foot rise in sea level, he’s saying the storm tide has only increased by one foot, which is LESS than the relative sea level rise … what happened to the 2.5 foot increase trumpeted in the lede?
w.
PS—The best claim was this one, saying that they had:

… adjusted the data where points were … missing, including using newspaper accounts of big storms to fill in some of the holes.

I love it. Making up missing data data out of the whole cloth, or guessing at missing data from newspaper reports, is now officially called “adjusting” your data. If I could only “adjust” my bank account in the same manner …

Jimbo
April 24, 2014 10:40 am

[The preliminary abstract of the paper is below]

Abstract
Increasing Storm Tides in New York Harbor, 1844-2013†
S.A. Talke1,*, P. Orton2 andD.A. Jay1
Three of the nine highest recorded water levels in the New York Harbor (NYH) region have occurred since 2010 (Mar. 2010, Aug. 2011, and Oct. 2012), and eight of the largest twenty have occurred since 1990. To investigate whether this cluster of high waters is a random occurrence or indicative of intensified storm tides, we recover archival tide gauge data back to 1844 and evaluate the trajectory of the annual maximum storm tide (AMST). Approximately half of long-term variance is anti-correlated with decadal-scale variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), while long-term trends explain the remainder. The 10-year storm-tide has increased by 0.28 m. Combined with a 0.44 m increase in local sea-level since 1856, the 10-year flood-level has increased by approximately 0.72 ± 0.25 m, and magnified the annual probability of overtopping the typical Manhattan seawall from less than 1% to about 20-25%.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059574/abstract

Gil Dewart
April 24, 2014 1:30 pm

An important factor in these situations is the physical shape of the shoreline (which can be modified by human or natural action), submarine topography (likewise) and the configuration of the continental shelf break (submarine landslides can alter this). These changes will affect the locations of convergences and divergences of incoming water masses. Changes in sea level will also affect the significance of topography on the magnitude of these flows, and not always in the corresponding direction.

kenw
April 24, 2014 1:44 pm

u.k.(us) says:
April 23, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Got anything more than platitudes ?
Please expand upon your “bit more experience”, and enlighten us.
Memories might be short.
Surely.
surely, indeed.
google Hurricane Ike. or any other large gulf hurricane where storm surge was a factor. Even try the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 (no name). We (USA Gulf coast residents) are awash in data for such. I’ll allow you the priviledge of learning about it on your own. Follow that seach with ones for not buildiing on barrier islands, filling in marshes, tide lands, etc. These actions increase storm surge penetration by removing natural dissipation. The tides aren’t getting all that higher, but they are penetratiing farther inland as the natural features disappear thru poor land use.

Editor
April 24, 2014 4:51 pm

In the last fifty years, the apparent sea level has risen 6 inches at The Battery in New York, according to the New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force Report to the Legislature dated Dec 31, 2010. NOAA’s NGS finds that 4.3 inches of that six inches consisted of the Battery sinking towards the center of the Earth due to AIG Subsidence. This is just the last 50 years. If we extrapolate that over the last 170 years: AIG would account for approximately 14.6 inches (Battery sinking) — accounting for the majority of the “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”. Please see my essay at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/27/what-to-do-about-the-flood-next-time/.
The most probable explanations for “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” (in addition to the 14 inches of land subsidence) are 1) restricted access to flood plains for the rising storm surge waters to flow onto due to development — either outright denied access or restricted channel flow (anyone growing up in or around the New Jersey Meadowlands will understand this) and 2) silting and narrowing of the actual river basins and bays themselves, so that they hold less volume of water in their “normal” states.