Atlantic Tropical Action 2012 - Part II

[am19psu]

You seem to be considering 1938 only from the perspective of NJ. It hit NY and New England at a square right angle.

As per the MWR, 1938 produced surges of up to 25 ft above MLW. The Providence surge was 15.8 ft above MSL, which would be ~18 ft above MLW, as per Jarvinen.

Sandy's highest surges were ~9 ft, or ~14 ft above MLW, as per NWS.

Agree with this, too. The maximum surges from 1938 were clearly higher than Sandy. But large surges were spread over a larger area in Sandy.

[JamieOber]

Agree with this, too. The maximum surges from 1938 were clearly higher than Sandy. But large surges were spread over a larger area in Sandy.

Some of the worst images coming out of this seem to be from Staten Island, they seem to have taken it worse than Manhattan. I know zero about their surge zones but are they more vulnerable than other places in the area? OT I think it's good that some media outlets are revealing their current plight, they are most definitely not returning to normal and are in more trouble than Manhattan.

[tornadotony]

I think it's definitely one of the worst for NJ-- if not the worst-- and it's Top 5 for Northeast USA since 1900. 1938 was definitely worse, and I'd need to research Re: a few of the others before reaching a verdict.

I've made a bunch of posts saying how impressed I'd been with Sandy-- not just the destruction, but the wind data and other factors. I even blogged about it: http://icyclone.com/...tober-2012.html

I just sometimes feel like there's no room for nuance around here. You either have to agree that an event was the most extreme ever, or you're perceived as this ball-buster anti-weenie. I said Sandy was an extreme event and one of the worst this century-- and for me, that is a very strong statement to make.

It depends on the metric, and I don't think this can be determined yet. The fairest metric is inflation-adjusted and normalized damage, because, well, it adjusts for construction (amount of what's in a hurricane's path) and for the value of the dollar. Additionally, it doesn't require consideration of the quality of the forecasts or the warning systems, as deaths do.

The inflation-adjusted and normalized value of damages in the 1938 hurricane is roughly $41.1 billion. If some of these projections of $40-50 billion in damage come to fruition with Sandy, then I'm going to have to give the nod to Sandy.

Table 3b in this document: http://www.nhc.noaa....f/nws-nhc-6.pdf

[klw]

Long Island had a population of approximately 4.5 million in 1938, (4.1 mil in 1930, 4.6 mil in 1940) in 2010 it was 7,568,000. (wikipedia- Long Island)

Population of New England in 2010 was 14,444,000 and only 8.427 (if my math is right) http://lwd.dol.state...990/poptrd1.htm

Populations of NJ and NY have also grown considerably.

Replay of 38 would have even greater effects today, regardless of building practices, because of the greater density of population. Hopefully human losses would be lessen by warning time.

I remember reading I believe in "Reading the Forested Landscape" about how 60 years later you could still see the signs in the woods of the effects of the storm. Here is an article on the longterm effects of hurricanes on the NE Landscape:

http://hfr.lternet.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/publications/pdfs/Boose_EcoMonographs_2001.pdf

We applied this method to the region of New England, USA, examining hurricanes

since European settlement in 1620. Results showed strong regional gradients in hurricane

frequency and intensity from southeast to northwest: mean return intervals for F0 damage

on the Fujita scale (loss of leaves and branches) ranged from 5 to 85 yr, mean return

intervals for F1 damage (scattered blowdowns, small gaps) ranged from 10 to .200 yr,

and mean return intervals for F2 damage (extensive blowdowns, large gaps) ranged from

85 to .380 yr. On a landscape scale, mean return intervals for F2 damage in the town of

Petersham, Massachusetts, ranged from 125 yr across most sites to .380 yr on scattered

lee slopes. Actual forest damage was strongly dependent on land use and natural disturbance

history. Annual and decadal timing of hurricanes varied widely. There was no clear centuryscale trend in the number of major hurricanes

Here is a quick piece on 1938 and forests;

http://fhsarchives.w...ricane-of-1938/

[OSUmetstud]

You seem to be considering 1938 only from the perspective of NJ. It hit NY and New England at a square right angle.

As per the MWR, 1938 produced surges of up to 25 ft above MLW. The Providence surge was 15.8 ft above MSL, which would be ~18 ft above MLW, as per Jarvinen.

Sandy's highest surges were ~9 ft, or ~14 ft above MLW, as per NWS.

I was talking about 1944 from the perspective of NJ...maybe I wasn't clear...since snowflake seemed to think the tides were worse, for NJ, which I don't think they were.

The storm surge (not the water levels) reached about 13 ft in western Long Island sound...I already stated this earlier...it just didn't occur matching at high tide.

[OSUmetstud]

I thought the water level (including normal tide) at Providence reached 15.8ft...not the "residual" ie. the different between normal tide and the storm surge.

[OSUmetstud]

Agree with this, too. The maximum surges from 1938 were clearly higher than Sandy. But large surges were spread over a larger area in Sandy.

The max surges were probably higher in 1938. What was the highest surge, then?

[Sunny and Warm]

It depends on the metric, and I don't think this can be determined yet. The fairest metric is inflation-adjusted and normalized damage, because, well, it adjusts for construction (amount of what's in a hurricane's path) and for the value of the dollar. Additionally, it doesn't require consideration of the quality of the forecasts or the warning systems, as deaths do.

The inflation-adjusted and normalized value of damages in the 1938 hurricane is roughly $41.1 billion. If some of these projections of $40-50 billion in damage come to fruition with Sandy, then I'm going to have to give the nod to Sandy.

Table 3b in this document: http://www.nhc.noaa....f/nws-nhc-6.pdf

I will be shocked if the final number isn't somewhere close to double that, and even that may be conservative. Early estimates are always well underdone for these types of extreme events. Just look st SRAIN's post on another thread. All gas lines to coastal areas will now require complete re-piping. That's hundreds of miles of piping all up and down the NJ coast. That's just one unknown cost-wise, among many others. And when the shore communities do not get the tourism dollars next summer, the economic impact will really hit home.

[OSUmetstud]

So 25 ft in SW CT according to that MWR article, that's nuts.

[Ground Scouring]

I will be shocked if the final number isn't somewhere close to double that, and even that may be conservative. Early estimates are always well underdone for these types of extreme events. Just look st SRAIN's post on another thread. All gas lines to coastal areas will now require complete re-piping. That's hundreds of miles of piping all up and down the NJ coast. That's just one unknown cost-wise, among many others. And when the shore communities do not get the tourism dollars next summer, the economic impact will really hit home.

Clarification: in the discussion that I partially helped to initiate, by referring to other storms as being worse than Sandy in NJ and the Northeast, I was only alluding to raw meteorological data--surge heights, storm size, intensity--rather than demographic factors such as inflation-adjusted expenses. Sandy may well turn out to be more expensive than 1938 was, but the same can be said for many other storms, including 1938 itself, if they were to occur today. Such is a natural consequence of population increase and higher inflation over time. Back in 1938, there were still many vacant lots and undeveloped parcels on the NJ coast / Long Island and in SNE. Given the intensity, size, and impact of many historic storms like 1938 and 1944, I believe those cyclones would still be more expensive than Sandy if they were to strike today. So by that metric, Sandy may well be the worst documented in terms of monetary losses, but based upon potential impacts, it may not surpass, in my view, a contemporary repeat of 1938 and 1944.

A similar case can be said for other cyclones--for example, Wilma 2005 was the third-costliest storm in U.S. history, but it would still pale beside a repeat of Great Miami 1926--a very large, 125-kt/930-mb cyclone that directly hit Miami from the ESE and flooded Miami Beach / downtown Miami and Fort Lauderdale. Confirmation on the large size: in a September 18, 2006, article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel commemorating the anniversary (which I saved and have in my possession), Chris Landsea of the reanalysis effort was quoted as saying that sustained hurricane-force winds extended from the upper FL Keys to N of West Palm Beach--more than 90+ n mi from the center. I have also read other books and sources, including this Monthly Weather Review article on conditions from Jupiter, FL, indicating hurricane winds in the 1926 hurricane occurred as far north as Saint Lucie County--between 90 and 110 n mi from the eye. Back in 1926, much of north Miami Beach and coastal Broward County was unsettled, so Wilma, in today’s densely populated South FL, would still be more expensive on a contemporary basis, but not in the inevitable repeat of a similarly large, intense cyclone like that of 1926.

I was talking about 1944 from the perspective of NJ...maybe I wasn't clear...since snowflake seemed to think the tides were worse, for NJ, which I don't think they were.

The storm surge (not the water levels) reached about 13 ft in western Long Island sound...I already stated this earlier...it just didn't occur matching at high tide.

I was referring to the 1938 and 1944 tides in NJ. I now realize that, officially, Sandy produced higher tides in NJ...however, 1938 and 1944 are officially close contenders. Also, I have personally seen pictures of the Jersey shore after both hurricanes, and even locally, some of the damage in and near Atlantic City and other areas--the same areas impacted by Sandy--seemed just as bad and even worse than in Sandy, though damage in the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm was roughly equal to that of Sandy. The areas under discussion had a similar elevation in 1938 and 1944 as in 2012, so I am inclined to conclude that the official measurements did not capture the highest surge in 1938 and 1944--particularly in concave bays like Barnegat Bay, in which water may pile up very high locally. Evidence that the official measurements may not reflect the true surge in NJ during 1938 and 1944 can be seen in other historical storms. I recommend looking at this link from my original post in this thread. The document contains many surge values--such as the 12.5 ft from Fort Lauderdale in 1926 (p. 24) and the 8.8 ft from Fort Pierce in 1947 (p. 74)--that are not found in most online sources. So there are many unofficial or local measurements that may not be officially documented but may in fact give a better indication of actual surge heights, particularly in areas where water may pile up--a highly relevant detail to emergency management and a rebuttal against individuals who fail to account for the fact that local topography can increase surge heights in their area.

You didn't provide any evidence that 1938 was as large as Sandy, at least that I saw. Sandy was 1100 mi in diameter. The only number you gave for 1938 was 500 n mi in diameter. Also, other sources, which I can't quote here, suggest 1944 was worse in Cape May and OCNJ, but that Sandy was worse from ACY northward.

In terms of size, I always refer to the radius of sustained, 1-min, 10-m, TS-/gale-force winds. Based upon this standard, the largest radius of gale winds I could locate in the advisories for Sandy was 450 n mi / 520 statute mi--roughly the same size or smaller than what I suggested for the 1938 hurricane. When we discuss storm size, in my view, what matters is really the gale radius, not the size of the circulation, as the gale radius determines or helps to gauge the breadth and magnitude of wind- and surge-caused impacts. Also, the reanalysis project and the NHC usually use gale radii as the benchmark for measuring cyclone size in scientific research and projects, not the rather-more-subjective size of the outer circulation (which is usually better quantified by the outer closed isobar or OCI).

[OSUmetstud]

That's because Atlantic City did not get the worse of the surge. Their tide was higher in 1962 than in Sandy. Areas north of ACY to the northeast Jersey coastline got record surges (including NYC) Tides were quite low in NYC in 1938...areas further southwest were even farther left of the circulation and would have also gotten relatively low tides...local wave amplications with respect to surge are going to exist equally for all storms.

[OSUmetstud]

So in conclusion, I'd put Sandy second to 1938. The other Mid-Atlantic and New England hurricanes were surpassed.

[Ground Scouring]

That's because Atlantic City did not get the worse of the surge. Their tide was higher in 1962 than in Sandy. Areas north of ACY to the northeast Jersey coastline got record surges (including NYC) Tides were quite low in NYC in 1938...areas further southwest were even farther left of the circulation and would have also gotten relatively low tides...local wave amplications with respect to surge are going to exist equally for all storms.

That argument is fair, and I do not disagree that, officially, Sandy produced record surge values from north of Atlantic City to NYC and W Long Island. However, I will continue to point out that I mentioned 1938, according to the surge document I previously mentioned twice, produced private surge measurements near 10 ft on the East River, with 9.5 ft next to the Brooklyn Bridge (see p. 52 in the PDF), though the surge at the Battery was 5.2 ft in 1938. The measurements look convincing as they were not observed at the narrow, southern entrance to Long Island Sound. The measurements in the PDF come from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. P. 60 gives 6.7 ft at the Battery in 1944, but note that heights of 10.5 ft were observed between Sandy Hook and ACY, near Lake Como, and as the measurements are widely dispersed in NJ in 1938 and 1944, there is a good chance that the highest surges locally were missed or not sampled. So I disagree that tides in NJ and NYC were low in 1938 and/or 1944 and am still sticking with my assessment that, in NJ, 1938 and 1944 were worse than Sandy, even though the official surge estimates may fail to gauge the severity. But otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.

So in conclusion, I'd put Sandy second to 1938. The other Mid-Atlantic and New England hurricanes were surpassed.

I think putting Sandy second to 1938 really does not do justice to the severity of the 1938 and 1944 hurricanes because photographs, anecdotal evidence, and data combined indicate those cyclones, ceteris paribus, caused more severe damage than did Sandy in NJ and on Long Island / in SNE. Also, the official publication of the Weather Bureau indicated 5-minute sustained winds of 61 kt at New York City, which reduces to 64 kt 1-minute--sustained hurricane force. Sandy produced hurricane-force gusts in NYC, not sustained winds. So by combined wind, surge, and forensic data, I still believe 1938 and 1944 were more severe in the aforesaid regions, though I respect your judgment as well.

[Ground Scouring]

Clarification: in the discussion that I partially helped to initiate, by referring to other storms as being worse than Sandy in NJ and the Northeast, I was only alluding to raw meteorological data--surge heights, storm size, intensity--rather than demographic factors such as inflation-adjusted expenses. Sandy may well turn out to be more expensive than 1938 was, but the same can be said for many other storms, including 1938 itself, if they were to occur today. Such is a natural consequence of population increase and higher inflation over time. Back in 1938, there were still many vacant lots and undeveloped parcels on the NJ coast / Long Island and in SNE. Given the intensity, size, and impact of many historic storms like 1938 and 1944, I believe those cyclones would still be more expensive than Sandy if they were to strike today. So by that metric, Sandy may well be the worst documented in terms of monetary losses, but based upon potential impacts, it may not surpass, in my view, a contemporary repeat of 1938 and 1944.

A similar case can be said for other cyclones--for example, Wilma 2005 was the third-costliest storm in U.S. history, but it would still pale beside a repeat of Great Miami 1926--a very large, 125-kt/930-mb cyclone that directly hit Miami from the ESE and flooded Miami Beach / downtown Miami and Fort Lauderdale. Confirmation on the large size: in a September 18, 2006, article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel commemorating the anniversary (which I saved and have in my possession), Chris Landsea of the reanalysis effort was quoted as saying that sustained hurricane-force winds extended from the upper FL Keys to N of West Palm Beach--more than 90+ n mi from the center. I have also read other books and sources, including this Monthly Weather Review article on conditions from Jupiter, FL, indicating hurricane winds in the 1926 hurricane occurred as far north as Saint Lucie County--between 90 and 110 n mi from the eye. Back in 1926, much of north Miami Beach and coastal Broward County was unsettled, so Wilma, in today’s densely populated South FL, would still be more expensive on a contemporary basis, but not in the inevitable repeat of a similarly large, intense cyclone like that of 1926.

I was referring to the 1938 and 1944 tides in NJ. I now realize that, officially, Sandy produced higher tides in NJ...however, 1938 and 1944 are officially close contenders. Also, I have personally seen pictures of the Jersey shore after both hurricanes, and even locally, some of the damage in and near Atlantic City and other areas--the same areas impacted by Sandy--seemed just as bad and even worse than in Sandy, though damage in the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm was roughly equal to that of Sandy. The areas under discussion had a similar elevation in 1938 and 1944 as in 2012, so I am inclined to conclude that the official measurements did not capture the highest surge in 1938 and 1944--particularly in concave bays like Barnegat Bay, in which water may pile up very high locally. Evidence that the official measurements may not reflect the true surge in NJ during 1938 and 1944 can be seen in other historical storms. I recommend looking at this link from my original post in this thread. The document contains many surge values--such as the 12.5 ft from Fort Lauderdale in 1926 (p. 24) and the 8.8 ft from Fort Pierce in 1947 (p. 74)--that are not found in most online sources. So there are many unofficial or local measurements that may not be officially documented but may in fact give a better indication of actual surge heights, particularly in areas where water may pile up--a highly relevant detail to emergency management and a rebuttal against individuals who fail to account for the fact that local topography can increase surge heights in their area.

In terms of size, I always refer to the radius of sustained, 1-min, 10-m, TS-/gale-force winds. Based upon this standard, the largest radius of gale winds I could locate in the advisories for Sandy was 450 n mi / 520 statute mi--roughly the same size or smaller than what I suggested for the 1938 hurricane. When we discuss storm size, in my view, what matters is really the gale radius, not the size of the circulation, as the gale radius determines or helps to gauge the breadth and magnitude of wind- and surge-caused impacts. Also, the reanalysis project and the NHC usually use gale radii as the benchmark for measuring cyclone size in scientific research and projects, not the rather-more-subjective size of the outer circulation (which is usually better quantified by the outer closed isobar or OCI).

To summarize, there is another key point: as I have been stating, historical records are incomplete, so in historical assessments, individuals must use more data than the official records and read between the lines, holistically, to understand whether recent storms like Sandy are really more severe, locally, than historic events of the past. Surface data and official stations were widely dispersed in 1938 and 1944 and were thus less likely to report the worst conditions, both wind and surge. So residents must not think that Sandy, though indeed one of the worst, is not the worst event to have impacted their area. Setting standards, as Camille 1969 survivors did before Katrina 2005 came along, is ultimately detrimental to safety as residents think they have an idea as to how bad events can be--when in fact, we only have abundant records from the last 50 years or so, in terms of aereal coverage by official weather stations.

I will make an allusion. Several years ago on another forum, a respectable contributor with meteorological background said that (s)he did not believe the storm surge in the 1926 Great Miami hurricane covered Miami Beach. (S)he correctly suggested that the large offshore depths would reduce the surge relative to that of other, shallower places like the Gulf shelf or Biscayne Bay, but then went on to argue that there was probably little surge flooding on Miami Beach. I have read much about the storm, and have seen NHC SLOSH runs, and even official sources like the NHC indicate that Miami Beach is low enough that the surge alone would flood the island--as records from 1926 indicate it did. The added effects of large waves over 30 feet high meant that the surge completely swept over the island and flooded downtown Miami several blocks inland. Also, aereal photos of Fort Lauderdale beach after the storm indicate that the barrier island there lost 20+ feet of sand and was, in the lowest-lying sections, flooded all the way to the Intracoastal Waterway / New River Sound. The surge document I posted showed 12.5 ft of surge on the island and 6-7 ft all along the New River, where Las Olas Riverfront is now. These effects were all from a very large, mature, intense hurricane with a 20-n-mi RMW and a possible outer eyewall at landfall.

(Photos from Fort Lauderdale also indicate likely 85-kt winds there. I have seen a book report that Hillsboro Lighthouse, elevation 35 m, recorded elevated winds of 115 kt in the 1926 hurricane, which, accounting for the old four-cup anemometer and the possibility that the wind was a 24-second gust, reduces to about 80 kt at the surface (10 m)--meaning near-Category-2 winds more than 40 n mi from the eye. These data are suggested by the severe damage in Fort Lauderdale, the fact that homes in Boca Raton and Delray were destroyed, and the fact that West Palm Beach had Wilma-like damage, suggesing hurricane winds even farther up the coast. Using values of TS 135 NW, 180 NE, 70 SW, 135 SE; 50 kt 105, 140, 55, 105; and H 85, 110, 45, 85, this link calculates an IKE TJ, TS+ of 120.587 and an SDP of 5.1 / 6.0, very similar to the values for Ike 2008. So the 1926 hurricane would have produced a surge similar to or greater than that of Ike if it struck the N Gulf with the size and intensity with which it struck South FL.)

If residents make the assumption that they are less vulnerable due to offshore depths--without accounting for low elevation and huge waves--they may conclude that a beachside condominium or home, for instance, is relatively safe. Such a conclusion is dangerous.

[HurricaneJosh]

I owe some responses Re: this Sandy-vs.-1938 debate and will get to those laterz...

But in the meantime, here's the preliminary track map for this season. I have to say, it's such a horrible tease that Sandy's classification is changed to extratropical literally at the coast.

My weenie side is taking over here-- but I can't help wishing they'd just designate this a hurricane landfall for NJ, given the enormity of the impact, its obvious historical significance, and the fact that the public will always think of it as a hurricane impact. I know, I know-- it's not a scientific viewpoint, but I think it's enough of a grey area and an argument can be made. It still had some tropical characteristics, including 1) obvious warm core, 2) apparent wind core, and 3) convection near if not over the center. Also of note: although significant damage occurred far from the center-- as far away as RI-- it seems the greatest destruction occurred relatively close to the center-- on the C and N NJ coasts and Metro NYC.

[wxmx]

Imminent land interaction and subtropical cooler waters are now the new positive factors for strengthening.

[Ground Scouring]

My weenie side is taking over here-- but I can't help wishing they'd just designate this a hurricane landfall for NJ, given the enormity of the impact, its obvious historical significance, and the fact that the public will always think of it as a hurricane impact. I know, I know-- it's not a scientific viewpoint, but I think it's enough of a grey area and an argument can be made. It still had some tropical characteristics, including 1) obvious warm core, 2) apparent wind core, and 3) convection near if not over the center. Also of note: although significant damage occurred far from the center-- as far away as RI-- it seems the greatest destruction occurred relatively close to the center-- on the C and N NJ coasts and Metro NYC.

I think there are some political considerations that make changes to the classification difficult. First, the insurance industry would be forced to reassess a burdensome number of claims if Sandy were to be reclassified posthumously as a hurricane impact in NJ. Of course, if the system were reclassified as a landfalling TC rather than an extratropical cyclone, other nearby areas such as NY would also be impacted by the reassessment, culminating in a snowballing of insurance problems. Given that the NHC in its advisories already assessed Sandy as being ET at LF in NJ, I would be surprised if the tropical-cyclone report suddenly altered the initial designation. I personally expect Sandy’s report to be one of the first to be released and rather bland in discussing the synoptic and mesoscale complications.

Second, although Sandy had a warm core at all levels and was producing convection, the convection itself may have not been related to release of latent heat and other tropical processes but may have been induced by baroclinic factors, at least just before, at, and after LF. In the initial hours before landfall, convection near the center decreased markedly and shifted to the S and W quadrants. The convection partially appeared to be induced by a weak warm seclusion that persisted as Sandy made landfall. The streamlined analysis at the time also showed a decidedly non-tropical shear structure at landfall. Even though its core was warm, Sandy may still be regarded as ET due to other factors--namely, the suggestion that the remaining convection was fostered by non-tropical mechanisms.

Interestingly, a similar debate about Tropical Storm Erin (2007) occurred as the NHC mulled over whether it was a TS or remnant low over OK. Ultimately, the NHC sided with the latter option due to a weak mid-level cold core aloft as the system moved near Oklahoma City with 50-kt winds. The NHC seems to be rather fluid as to which criteria and circumstances determine what makes a tropical cyclone, well, tropical. Depending on its methodologies, the NHC may or may not be justified in viewing Sandy as ET, even though the warm core would seem to argue against ET status.

What does seem odd on the preliminary map is that the cyclone has not been made a major hurricane at Cuban LF, even though there is abundant evidence, including 85-kt winds well inland at Holguín, that supports 100 kt at LF.

[tornadotony]

In terms of size, I always refer to the radius of sustained, 1-min, 10-m, TS-/gale-force winds. Based upon this standard, the largest radius of gale winds I could locate in the advisories for Sandy was 450 n mi / 520 statute mi--roughly the same size or smaller than what I suggested for the 1938 hurricane. When we discuss storm size, in my view, what matters is really the gale radius, not the size of the circulation, as the gale radius determines or helps to gauge the breadth and magnitude of wind- and surge-caused impacts. Also, the reanalysis project and the NHC usually use gale radii as the benchmark for measuring cyclone size in scientific research and projects, not the rather-more-subjective size of the outer circulation (which is usually better quantified by the outer closed isobar or OCI).

There are many flaws in the logic that you used in your analysis. First off, you confuse radius and diameter quite a bit, first stating that the 1000mb closed contour had a radius of 500 mi, and then relating that to a gale radius of over 600 mi. There is no support for that, even if the storm got bigger between the measurement of the 500mi radius and the time of landfall. Additionally, the pressure/wind relationship absolutely does not support 1938 being larger whatsoever. The 5mb difference in central pressure between 1938 and Sandy does not come close to supporting the 35kt disparity in the maximum sustained wind. Simply put, the scientific evidence available suggests that Sandy was larger than 1938.

[gymengineer]

Thats with wealth normalization (i.e. factoring in development of an area and not just adjusting damages at the time for inflation).

My opinion is that damage rankings should always account for inflation-- that's such a straight forward factor that it makes no sense not to include it. There are so many examples of past hurricanes (Betsy, Hugo, Camille, Agnes, etc.) that were clearly more devastating strikes to property than, say, Jeanne.

But the normalization values are much more uncertain and not always logical. One of the strongest examples, IMO, would be the fact that Hurricane King (downtown Miami as a strengthening high Cat 3) doesn't register on the list. There is no way that King wouldn't have matched if not smashed Charley's damage total if it occurred in 2004 instead of 1950.

[HurricaneJosh]

My opinion is that damage rankings should always account for inflation-- that's such a straight forward factor that it makes no sense not to include it. There are so many examples of past hurricanes (Betsy, Hugo, Camille, Agnes, etc.) that were clearly more devastating strikes to property than, say, Jeanne.

But the normalization values are much more uncertain and not always logical. One of the strongest examples, IMO, would be the fact that Hurricane King (downtown Miami as a strengthening high Cat 3) doesn't register on the list. There is no way that King wouldn't have matched if not smashed Charley's damage total if it occurred in 2004 instead of 1950.

Bingo. King 1950 really shows that this methodology is flawed. King would be an extremely expensive event if it happened now.

I also find the 1938 number puzzling. Given the ferocity and size of that cyclone-- and the dense population, expensive property, and industrialization of the direct hit zone (C/E LI, C/E CT, RI)-- $41 billion seems suspect.

[Ground Scouring]

There are many flaws in the logic that you used in your analysis. First off, you confuse radius and diameter quite a bit, first stating that the 1000mb closed contour had a radius of 500 mi, and then relating that to a gale radius of over 600 mi. There is no support for that, even if the storm got bigger between the measurement of the 500mi radius and the time of landfall. Additionally, the pressure/wind relationship absolutely does not support 1938 being larger whatsoever. The 5mb difference in central pressure between 1938 and Sandy does not come close to supporting the 35kt disparity in the maximum sustained wind. Simply put, the scientific evidence available suggests that Sandy was larger than 1938.

Now that you mention these issues, I will concede that my mathematic logic was incorrect and that you are correct. Mathematical calculations are not my strong suit and meteorology for me is a historical interest more than anything (my major is in history, by the way). My first choice for a major would have been meteorology, but my neurology makes mathematics more difficult than other subjects, so I am going toward the historical route, though it may include discussions of historic storms--I am much more of a Jay Barnes than a Chris Landsea or any other meteorologist. Besides, while I have a great attention span and am adept at pattern recognition, imbibing fluid equations for research or sitting up at a desk late at night and ogling over live data is not my cup of tea, genetically speaking.

[HurricaneJosh]

Bingo. King 1950 really shows that this methodology is flawed. King would be an extremely expensive event if it happened now.

I also find the 1938 number puzzling. Given the ferocity and size of that cyclone-- and the dense population, expensive property, and industrialization of the direct hit zone (C/E LI, C/E CT, RI)-- $41 billion seems suspect.

The more I'm looking at that normalized list, the more it seems like pure quackery.

The 1947 hurricane-- a very large Cat 4 that came ashore near Fort Lauderdale-- only shows $14 billion. That is absurd. And why would Charley-- a microcane hitting the less-populated W coast-- rank higher than 1947, which smashed the densely-populated (and more pricey) SE coast? Huh?

Other bits of surrealism:

* Hazel 1954 is only $17 billion. Forget the Cat-4 landfall in the Carolinas-- what about the tremendous, hurricane-strength impact on all major I95 cities up to Canada in its extratropical state?

* The great 1944 'cane-- a very large, very strong Cat 2 (almost 3) that raked the entire East Coast from NC to New England, with great devastation in VA, DE, MD, NJ, and NY-- is not even $14 billion. Crazy.

Those are just a couple of other examples.

Not sure what formula they're using, but the list doesn't seem to be reality-based or useful for our purposes here.

[andyhb]

The more I'm looking at that normalized list, the more it seems like pure quackery.

The 1947 hurricane-- a very large Cat 4 that came ashore near Fort Lauderdale-- only shows $14 billion. That is absurd. And why would Charley-- a microcane hitting the less-populated W coast-- rank higher than 1947, which smashed the densely-populated (and more pricey) SE coast? Huh?

Just one point, the area north of Miami was much less built up/populated during this timeframe compared to later on, and this storm was dwarfed in impact (although perhaps not intensity) by the 1926 Miami Hurricane and Hurricane San Felipe Segundo.

Also, looking at analysis from the event, it appears to have been a fairly small cyclone as well, although maybe not quite as small as Andrew or Charley. Where are you finding that it was a very large TC?

[Ground Scouring]

Just one point, the area north of Miami was much less built up/populated during this timeframe compared to later on, and this storm was dwarfed in impact (although perhaps not intensity) by the 1926 Miami Hurricane and Hurricane San Felipe Segundo.

Also, looking at analysis from the event, it appears to have been a fairly small cyclone as well, although maybe not quite as small as Andrew or Charley. Where are you finding that it was a very large TC?

While the area between Miami and West Palm Beach until 1965 was much less populated than it is today, it was far from unpopulated even in the 1920s. At that time, West Palm Beach, Lake Worth, and Fort Lauderdale, plus wealthy Palm Beach on the barrier island, were each home to several thousand people and smaller communities like Boynton, Delray, Deerfield, and Pompano had hundreds of residents. Hollywood and Hallandale, plus the N Miami suburbs, also contained thousands of people. The same case held true in 1947, only with even more people due to the effects of World War II-era military operations and economic recovery. So the area, while it has grown explosively since 1965, was far from a howling wilderness as early as the 1920s--and certainly not as late as the 1940s.

Second, the 1947 hurricane, while severe, just does not measure up to the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes--in terms of intensity and size. The reanalysis of the 1947 hurricane gives a landfall intensity of 115 kt/945 mb near Fort Lauderdale. The Great Miami (1926) and Okeechobee / San Felipe Segundo (1928) hurricanes were recently reanalyzed each as being 125 kt at landfall, with the 1926 hurricane bearing 930 mb and the 1928 storm 929 mb. I have studied both storms extensively, and have read books on each--and each storm had sustained hurricane winds more than 75 n mi from the center...probably ~90 n mi in the 1928 hurricane and ~110 n mi in the 1926 hurricane. Both storms utterly smashed the communities they hit--1928 is the gold standard for West Palm / Palm Beach County, 1926 for Miami-Fort Lauderdale. And never forget that both storms devastated Lake Okeechobee--the 150+ deaths at Moore Haven in 1926 were actually higher than the toll anywhere else in South FL (there were 114 deaths in Miami), while of course 1928 was a coup de grâce that killed more than 2,500, likely close to 3,000, people from Clewiston to Pahokee to Okeechobee, nearly half the population of Palm Beach County in 1928.

By contrast, although the official report on the 1947 hurricane says hurricane winds extended about 110 n mi in all directions from the center (assuming that the 240 mi reported was the diameter rather than the radius), the observations from weather stations at the time indicate sustained hurricane winds did not extend north of Fort Pierce...about 105 n mi from the center. The 110 n mi reported was likely based upon gusts, not sustained winds...as gusts to hurricane intensity were reported from Carysfort Reef to Cape Canaveral. So 1947 was severe, but 1926 and 1928 are the perfect twins in South FL...as far as large size and combined extreme intensity are concerned.

[andyhb]

Second, the 1947 hurricane, while severe, just does not measure up to the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes--in terms of intensity and size. The reanalysis of the 1947 hurricane gives a landfall intensity of 115 kt/945 mb near Fort Lauderdale. The Great Miami (1926) and Okeechobee / San Felipe Segundo (1928) hurricanes were recently reanalyzed each as being 125 kt at landfall, with the 1926 hurricane bearing 930 mb and the 1928 storm 929 mb. I have studied both storms extensively, and have read books on each--and each storm had sustained hurricane winds more than 75 n mi from the center...probably ~90 n mi in the 1928 hurricane and ~110 n mi in the 1926 hurricane. Both storms utterly smashed the communities they hit--1928 is the gold standard for West Palm / Palm Beach County, 1926 for Miami-Fort Lauderdale. And never forget that both storms devastated Lake Okeechobee--the 150+ deaths at Moore Haven in 1926 were actually higher than the toll anywhere else in South FL (there were 114 deaths in Miami), while of course 1928 was a coup de grâce that killed more than 2,500, likely close to 3,000, people from Clewiston to Pahokee to Okeechobee, nearly half the population of Palm Beach County in 1928.

This is essentially what I was arguing, albeit more on the size aspect versus intensity...

[Ground Scouring]

This is what I was arguing...

Yes, you are right. I was concurring with the thrust of your post but was clarifying that the 1947 hurricane was still much larger than either Andrew or Charley. While not as large as the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes, it was not a micro-hurricane--not by a long shot.

[HurricaneJosh]

Just one point, the area north of Miami was much less built up/populated during this timeframe compared to later on, and this storm was dwarfed in impact (although perhaps not intensity) by the 1926 Miami Hurricane and Hurricane San Felipe Segundo.

The whole point of normalization is to account for the population increases.

Also, looking at analysis from the event, it appears to have been a fairly small cyclone as well, although maybe not quite as small as Andrew or Charley. Where are you finding that it was a very large TC?

It is described as an enormous hurricane in all literature, and modern reanalysis puts the intensity a at 115 kt.

You must be thinking of a different storm.

[HurricaneJosh]

While the area between Miami and West Palm Beach until 1965 was much less populated than it is today, it was far from unpopulated even in the 1920s. At that time, West Palm Beach, Lake Worth, and Fort Lauderdale, plus wealthy Palm Beach on the barrier island, were each home to several thousand people and smaller communities like Boynton, Delray, Deerfield, and Pompano had hundreds of residents. Hollywood and Hallandale, plus the N Miami suburbs, also contained thousands of people. The same case held true in 1947, only with even more people due to the effects of World War II-era military operations and economic recovery. So the area, while it has grown explosively since 1965, was far from a howling wilderness as early as the 1920s--and certainly not as late as the 1940s.

Second, the 1947 hurricane, while severe, just does not measure up to the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes--in terms of intensity and size. The reanalysis of the 1947 hurricane gives a landfall intensity of 115 kt/945 mb near Fort Lauderdale. The Great Miami (1926) and Okeechobee / San Felipe Segundo (1928) hurricanes were recently reanalyzed each as being 125 kt at landfall, with the 1926 hurricane bearing 930 mb and the 1928 storm 929 mb. I have studied both storms extensively, and have read books on each--and each storm had sustained hurricane winds more than 75 n mi from the center...probably ~90 n mi in the 1928 hurricane and ~110 n mi in the 1926 hurricane. Both storms utterly smashed the communities they hit--1928 is the gold standard for West Palm / Palm Beach County, 1926 for Miami-Fort Lauderdale. And never forget that both storms devastated Lake Okeechobee--the 150+ deaths at Moore Haven in 1926 were actually higher than the toll anywhere else in South FL (there were 114 deaths in Miami), while of course 1928 was a coup de grâce that killed more than 2,500, likely close to 3,000, people from Clewiston to Pahokee to Okeechobee, nearly half the population of Palm Beach County in 1928.

By contrast, although the official report on the 1947 hurricane says hurricane winds extended about 110 n mi in all directions from the center (assuming that the 240 mi reported was the diameter rather than the radius), the observations from weather stations at the time indicate sustained hurricane winds did not extend north of Fort Pierce...about 105 n mi from the center. The 110 n mi reported was likely based upon gusts, not sustained winds...as gusts to hurricane intensity were reported from Carysfort Reef to Cape Canaveral. So 1947 was severe, but 1926 and 1928 are the perfect twins in South FL...as far as large size and combined extreme intensity are concerned.

I think we've gone off topic here. I'm not saying it was as bad or as severe as 1926 or 1928. I'm saying that the normalized damage figure for that location, size, and intensity is silly.

[andyhb]

It is described as an enormous hurricane in all literature, and modern reanalysis puts the intensity a at 115 kt.

You must be thinking of a different storm.

An enormous hurricane in size in literature is different than an enormous hurricane in size in (re)analysis, as snowflake just highlighted. And the 115 kt reanalysis wasn't my point, I never said that it wasn't a strong hurricane. And I also never said that the damage calculation wasn't off.

And I'm comparing it to damage totals (normalized) for two storms that struck a similar area, albeit the 1947 hurricane was a bit weaker and likely somewhat smaller than 1926 and 1928.

[Ground Scouring]

I think we've gone off topic here. I'm not saying it was as bad or as severe as 1926 or 1928. I'm saying that the normalized damage figure for that location, size, and intensity is silly.

I completely agree as well...I have long noted the discrepancies between the actual property values and the expected damage totals for many historic cyclones, even when accounting for inflation. In some cases like King 1950 and 1944, the problem may lie in that the models behind the study rely on the unadulterated, original HURDAT (best-track) winds, which are 90 kt at landfall for King and in the Cat.-1 range for 1944. But as the best track currently lists 135 kt at LF for 1947, the study does not make sense.

An enormous hurricane in literature is different than an enormous hurricane in (re)analysis, as snowflake just highlighted. And the 115 kt reanalysis wasn't my point, I never said that it wasn't a strong hurricane.

The bolded was actually not my point, which was that the 1947 hurricane was not a micro-hurricane in the reanalysis or any other study or literature, but that it was not as large as the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes in S FL. Please show me where the reanalysis indicates the 1947 TC was smaller, closer to Charley or Andrew. Perhaps you do not realize that Andrew and Charley had eyes less than 15 n mi wide, small radii of maximum winds, and very small closed isobars within high ambient pressures. Those storms were tiny micro-hurricanes like Cyclone Tracy (just larger) and the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.