WC's 2011's Top 5 Hurricane Overdue Cities article

[CapturedNature]

I saw this article and recalled some recent discussions about the use of the word "overdue" in a meteorological sense and I don't recall this specific article being discussed here. I believe it's from late May/early June.

2011's Top 5 Hurricane Overdue Cities

From the article:

All of that got me to thinking about the cities that have gone the longest without a direct hit from the core of a “significant” hurricane. That resulted in this list of selected cities, in order of how many years it has been. For some of the cities, their last “significant” direct hit was from a major hurricane, while for others that have no known direct hits from a major hurricane, their last direct hit from any hurricane is the determining factor.

These and dozens of other U.S. cities, including those hit very recently, all are vulnerable and could be hit this year or any year, and everyone needs to be hurricane-prepared. Many residents of the cities on this list, however, might be among the starkest examples of people who truly believe their hometown is immune from hurricanes. As a result, they might not have chosen to make sure they have enough insurance to replace their home if damaged or destroyed by a hurricane.

To be fair, the author (Dr. Rick Knabb, Hurricane Expert) does not use the term overdue but the editor does.

[Scott747]

San Diego

[Ed Lizard]

Besides the overdue part, San Diego? Yes, I am aware of the 1930s Long Beach storm. But even adding several degrees C to the water temps in a strong El Nino year, a storm has a lot of cool water to cross, and cool water will also reduce mixing of stronger winds aloft.

[kab2791]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u70EYe4vy8U

[Ed Lizard]

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/presentations/ams-sandiego.ppt#14

Not absolutely impossible, apparently, but I'd like to think even a strong TS/low Cat 1 as might have happened once wouldn't do much damage to well built homes.

[Srain]

But..but...but..it could happen tomorrow....

[MJO812]

But..but...but..it could happen tomorrow....

TWC always shows NYC when the show is on t.v.

[Ed Lizard]

TWC always shows NYC when they show is on t.v.

I think many people want that Cat 3 crossing Staten Island moving a touch West of due North, and the lower Manhattan subways filling with salt water. Just giving the people what they want.

[Amped]

Besides the overdue part, San Diego? Yes, I am aware of the 1930s Long Beach storm. But even adding several degrees C to the water temps in a strong El Nino year, a storm has a lot of cool water to cross, and cool water will also reduce mixing of stronger winds aloft.

I have noticed storms tend to weaken rapidly just before they reach the temperature gradient. This is probably because cooler more stable air from the airmass over the cooler water starts to get injested by the storm.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Besides the overdue part, San Diego? Yes, I am aware of the 1930s Long Beach storm. But even adding several degrees C to the water temps in a strong El Nino year, a storm has a lot of cool water to cross, and cool water will also reduce mixing of stronger winds aloft.

I believe in 1997, the SSTs just off SD briefly reached near 80 F... so it isn't impossible.

[wx.1028]

I think many people want that Cat 3 crossing Staten Island moving a touch West of due North, and the lower Manhattan subways filling with salt water. Just giving the people what they want.

[Amped]

NYC of course on the list.

I've always wondered, if a large CAT 1 tracked up the Garden State Parkway and hit at exactly high tide how much Damage could it do?

It would be embarassing if a CAT 1 made it into the top 5 most damaging US hurricanes.

[MJW155]

NYC of course on the list.

I've always wondered, if a large CAT 1 tracked up the Garden State Parkway and hit at exactly high tide how much Damage could it do?

It would be embarassing if a CAT 1 made it into the top 5 most damaging US hurricanes.

We almost found out during Gloria. If it had hit at high tide, the NYC subway system would have been flooded and Newark Airport would have been under 3 feet of water.

[A-L-E-X]

We almost found out during Gloria. If it had hit at high tide, the NYC subway system would have been flooded and Newark Airport would have been under 3 feet of water.

I wonder how much damage there could be with a repeat of the August 1893 storm. That was a Cat 2 storm I believe and it made landfall right near JFK and destroyed a popular barrier island.

[A-L-E-X]

One thing that's always amused me regarding SoCal/SoAriz is what if a storm took the "perfect" track and bisected the Gulf of California. Notice how warm the temps in there are? Is it possible for a major storm with a very small, tight core, to maintain most of its strength by traveling the midsection of that Gulf without losing much intensity (I assume it would have to be moving rather fast) and what kind of an impact might it have in SoCal/SoAriz?

[HurricaneJosh]

I agree Re:Tampa and Savannah-- those cities are eventually going to get really nailed.

The San Diego threat is hard to take seriously, despite the 1858 event. And people in CA don't even think about hurricanes. (Most Californians don't even know what a hurricane is-- they get them confused with tornadoes. It's all just crazy wind storms that happen to the E.)

The risk for Honolulu is more real, but when you look at history, you see that strong hurricanes are exceedingly rare in HI. Iniki is really the only one from the last half-century or so. (Iwa was only a Cat 1.)

NYC-- not sure how I feel about that one. Yes, it's vulnerable, I guess-- but it's just so hard to get a solid hurricane core right in that "crotch" area between NJ and LI.

[A-L-E-X]

I agree Re:Tampa and Savannah-- those cities are eventually going to get really nailed.

The San Diego threat is hard to take seriously, despite the 1858 event. And people in CA don't even think about hurricanes. (Most Californians don't even know what a hurricane is-- they get them confused with tornadoes-- it's all just crazy sh*t that happens to the E.)

The risk for Honolulu is more real, but when you look at history, you see that strong hurricanes are exceedingly rare in HI. Iniki is really the only one from the last half-century or so. (Iwa was only a Cat 1.)

NYC-- not sure how I feel about that one. Yes, it's vulnerable, I guess-- but it's just so hard to get a solid hurricane core right in that "crotch" area between NY and LI.

There's a few cases of it, but all pre-1900 lol. I imagine I'm significantly more vulnerable here, but people on Long Beach even more so, even if a storm tracks to their east, and especially people on the North Shore-- they would get flooding off Long Island Sound with a NE wind. This would apply to the north shores of Queens (around LGA) and the north shore of the Island. Wasn't Long Beach significantly flooded in Donna, with winds even stronger than the Dec 1992 noreaster (which was huge).

[MJW155]

I agree Re:Tampa and Savannah-- those cities are eventually going to get really nailed.

God help the people in the St. Petersburg/Clearwater area if a Charlie like storm hit. 350,000 people on that peninsula; most of which have never been in a hurricane.

[ORH_wxman]

There's a few cases of it, but all pre-1900 lol. I imagine I'm significantly more vulnerable here, but people on Long Beach even more so, even if a storm tracks to their east, and especially people on the North Shore-- they would get flooding off Long Island Sound with a NE wind. This would apply to the north shores of Queens (around LGA) and the north shore of the Island. Wasn't Long Beach significantly flooded in Donna, with winds even stronger than the Dec 1992 noreaster (which was huge).

The NYC area is very vulnerable based on a geographical standpoint and how the surge would be so destructive, but in terms of probability, its very low. As Josh said, its so hard to get the storm to wedge into that small area...nevermind that extremely anomalous pattern it would take to even get a storm to move NW/NNW into that zone.

Eastern Long Island and coastal New England are orders of magnitude more vulnerable than New York City.

[A-L-E-X]

The NYC area is very vulnerable based on a geographical standpoint and how the surge would be so destructive, but in terms of probability, its very low. As Josh said, its so hard to get the storm to wedge into that small area...nevermind that extremely anomalous pattern it would take to even get a storm to move NW/NNW into that zone.

Eastern Long Island and coastal New England are orders of magnitude more vulnerable than New York City.

Will, what's the situation like for western Long Island barrier islands like Long Beach and the south shore of Nassau County in general? I know these areas were severely flooded out in the December 1992 noreaster and I've heard the flooding was even worse in Donna, which tracked east of the area. I wonder if the dynamics of being on a barrier island make those areas especially vulnerable regardless of wind direction.

[ORH_wxman]

Will, what's the situation like for western Long Island barrier islands like Long Beach and the south shore of Nassau County in general? I know these areas were severely flooded out in the December 1992 noreaster and I've heard the flooding was even worse in Donna, which tracked east of the area. I wonder if the dynamics of being on a barrier island make those areas especially vulnerable regardless of wind direction.

December 1992 was about as bad it gets there...that was essentially a marginal cat 1 hurricane or strong TS that stalled for 24 hours in a position to completely hammer them. There's a reason a ton of those places in that area down to the NNJ coast have their record surge in December 1992 and not in a hurricane. Long Island sound had a 12 foot storm surge in December 1992.

The perfect storm track in a major hurricane or even a cat 2 could obliterate those records, but the probability of that type of track is so low that its hard to take seriously anyone that says "they are due".....yes it will happen eventually, but there's a pretty good chance it might be 500 or 1000 years from now and not in our lifetimes.

[A-L-E-X]

December 1992 was about as bad it gets there...that was essentially a marginal cat 1 hurricane or strong TS that stalled for 24 hours in a position to completely hammer them. There's a reason a ton of those places in that area down to the NNJ coast have their record surge in December 1992 and not in a hurricane. Long Island sound had a 12 foot storm surge in December 1992.

The perfect storm track in a major hurricane or even a cat 2 could obliterate those records, but the probability of that type of track is so low that its hard to take seriously anyone that says "they are due".....yes it will happen eventually, but there's a pretty good chance it might be 500 or 1000 years from now and not in our lifetimes.

Yes, I dont believe in anyone being "overdue" for anything, since statistically it really doesn't make a difference what the prior years' outcomes were in anything. The most recent hurricane that I could remember that had catastrophic impacts on any of the 5 boroughs was August 1893, which took out a famous barrier island beach resort.

[A-L-E-X]

http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/6444

In 1893, New York witnessed a hurricane so powerful it wiped an island right off the map.

Hog Island, a 1600m long island south of Rockaway Beach, was never seen again after the hurricane of 1893. All that remains are a few antiques that washed up on the beach.

On August 23, 1893, a Category 2 hurricane hit new York City, sinking boats, killing sailors and uprooting trees in Central Park. Hog Island got the worst of it though. It simply ceased to exist after the hurricane. It was washed away in one day.

New York rarely gets hit by hurricanes. The statistical average time between hurricanes hitting New York is about 75 years. Another hurricane hitting New York now would cost an estimated $11.6 billion in damages.

[A-L-E-X]

This 1821 stuff has to be wrong, as Josh pointed out on the old board (unless a cat 1 could somehow cause all that damage?).... but the 1893 stuff is legit.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/12908/

But our own hurricane history is more tumultuous than many New Yorkers might think. In 1821, when a major hurricane made a direct hit on Manhattan, stunned residents recorded sea levels rising as fast as thirteen feet in a single hour down where there’s now Battery Park City. Everything was flooded south of Canal Street. The storm struck at low tide, though, and, according to Queens College professor Nicholas Coch, a coastal geologist who calls himself a “forensic hurricanologist,” that’s “the only thing that saved the city.”

Then there’s Hog Island. The pig-shaped mile-long barrier island was off the southern coast of the Rockaways. After the Civil War, developers built saloons and bathhouses on it, and Hog Island became a Gilded Age version of the Hamptons. The city’s political bosses and business elite used the place as a kind of beachy annex of Tammany Hall. That all ended on the night of August 23, 1893, when a terrifying Category 2 hurricane made landfall on the swamp that is now JFK airport.

The hurricane was a major event. All six front-page columns of the August 25, 1893, New York Times were dedicated to the “unexampled fury” of the “West Indian monster.” The storm sunk dozens of boats and killed scores of sailors. In Central Park, hundreds of trees were uprooted, and gangs of Italian immigrant boys “roamed . . . in the early hours of the morning collecting the dead sparrows and plucking them of their feathers.” Apparently looting was not yet in vogue. The brand-new Metropolitan Life building on Madison Avenue was severely damaged. And a 30-foot storm surge swept across southern Brooklyn and Queens, destroying virtually every man-made structure in its path. These days, evacuation plans are in place, officials said last week. But “try to tell someone in Sheepshead Bay that they have to evacuate immediately because within the next 24 hours they’ll have 30 feet of storm surge,” says Mike Lee, director of Watch Command at the New York City Office of Emergency Management. “They’ll laugh at you. I mean, I barely even believe it.”

As for Hog Island, “it largely disappeared that night,” Coch says. “As far as I know, it is the only incidence of the removal of an entire island by a hurricane.”

Statistically, the New York area is hit by one of these monster storms every 75 years or so; “it’s just a matter of time,” says Lee. After Hog Island, the next big one came a little ahead of schedule, the “Long Island Express” of 1938, with 183-mile-per-hour winds. At the time, Long Island wasn’t a densely populated suburban sprawl. The same hurricane today would cause incredible havoc. Hurricane Carol, a Category 3 storm that hit eastern Long Island and came ashore in Connecticut in 1954, mostly missed the city (even as it inundated downtown Providence, Rhode Island, under twelve feet of water).

Were another Long Island Express to barrel in, AIR Worldwide Corporation, an insurance-industry analyst, estimates $11.6 billion in New York losses alone. On AIR’s list of “the top ten worst places for an extreme hurricane to strike,” New York City is No. 2, behind only Miami. New Orleans is ranked fifth.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes, I dont believe in anyone being "overdue" for anything, since statistically it really doesn't make a difference what the prior years' outcomes were in anything. The most recent hurricane that I could remember that had catastrophic impacts on any of the 5 boroughs was August 1893, which took out a famous barrier island beach resort.

NYC geography makes them very vulnerable but its simply so tough to get a hurricane to take that track that its probably not worth talking about them being "due". They'll get the bad track eventually though.

The places that are the most vulnerable to a realistic hit now are Buzzards Bay and Narragansett Bay in MA and RI...they were hit extremely hard in 1938 and 1954 (more Narragansett) and haven't been hit since. So those are the spots that need to be watched very closely because the typical NE hurricane track has a much higher likelihood of hitting them.

[A-L-E-X]

NYC geography makes them very vulnerable but its simply so tough to get a hurricane to take that track that its probably not worth talking about them being "due". They'll get the bad track eventually though.

The places that are the most vulnerable to a realistic hit now are Buzzards Bay and Narragansett Bay in MA and RI...they were hit extremely hard in 1938 and 1954 (more Narragansett) and haven't been hit since. So those are the spots that need to be watched very closely because the typical NE hurricane track has a much higher likelihood of hitting them.

Will, how did those areas do with Bob? Did they get a significant surge up there? If I remember correctly, the center of Bob passed between Montauk and Block Island.

[ORH_wxman]

Will, how did those areas do with Bob? Did they get a significant surge up there? If I remember correctly, the center of Bob passed between Montauk and Block Island.

Bob was too far east to hit them extremely hard. There was a pretty big storm surge in Buzzards Bay but Bob was weakening enough that it still wasn't catastrophic...a stronger system could have been a lot lot worse. Narragansett Bay was west of the track so they never saw a big impact.

[MJW155]

NYC geography makes them very vulnerable but its simply so tough to get a hurricane to take that track that its probably not worth talking about them being "due". They'll get the bad track eventually though.

Wouldn't a track going NNW or NW and making landfall in NJ between AC and Sandy Hook do the most damage to the NYC tri-state area? You'd have NJ getting the direct hit and you'd have NYC/LI being on the bad side of the storm.

I think that's far more likely to create problems rather than a direct NYC hit.

[ORH_wxman]

Wouldn't a track going NNW or NW and making landfall in NJ between AC and Sandy Hook do the most damage to the NYC tri-state area? You'd have NJ getting the direct hit and you'd have NYC/LI being on the bad side of the storm.

I think that's far more likely to create problems rather than a direct NYC hit.

Yes, just SW of NYC would be the worst landfall...but its so hard to get a landfall like that because it requires the system moving NW which is hard to do. Whether its directly hitting NYC or hitting the coast of central NJ, its very difficult to get that type of track. A huge majority of Northeast hurricanes are already hooking to the east when they make landfall which is why LI and New England are at such a greater risk than the coasts of NJ and NYC which are "tucked" in to the SW.

[yoda]

It would take a lot, but DC wouldn't fair well with a strong hurricane... especially with the Bay/Potomac nearby. I always thought we caught a bit of a break up here with Isabel. Emily in 1993 was a bit menacing, but stayed far enough offshore. I am not sure how DC would fare if a Cat 3 cane were to strike/make landfall at Norfolk lets say and be moving NW at 15-20 mph.

To add on cause I see Will posting, wind gusts reached into the 70s up here in Fairfax County from Isabel