Atlantic Tropical Action 2012 - Part II

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

You might also add that Gordon is only the third recorded hurricane on record to directly make landfall on one of the Azores--Storm #8 (1926) and Hurricane Hanna 1959 are the others (both Category 2).

Nadine came close a few times

[Ground Scouring]

Nasty images from Santiago de Cuba after Sandy...the RMW apparently passed less than 5 n mi to the west, so these images most probably do not entirely capture the worst impact. The images of the mangled trees in the background, combined with some serious structural damage as well as reconnaissance and satellite data, suggest sustained winds of at least 85 kt in some areas.

[Ground Scouring]

Long Island, Bahamas, which was just <25 n mi east of the eye, shows Wilma-like (~70-kt 1-min sustained) tree damage:

[Ground Scouring]

More and more models are showing a symmetrical, warm-core, 65-kt+ hurricane hitting in the vicinity of NJ...Josh, are you in?

[HurricaneJosh]

Cool pics from Cuba and the Bahamas-- thanks! The Cuba pics don't surprise me-- it looked really intense in IR and MW imagery as it crossed the coast. I would have guessed stronger than 95 kt.

Re: chasing it on the East Coast. I dunno-- I'm skeptical. I'm very stuck in climo, and I'm having trouble taking it seriously as a tropical system this time of year, that far N-- and chasing nor'easters, no matter how strong, ain't really my cup o' tea. I'm keeping an eye on it, but...

[HurricaneJosh]

Wow.

After a really low-drama season, what a smashing finale Hurricane Sandy turned out to be.

The Cuba landfall was just gorgeous-- a beautiful eye and core as it crossed the coast-- and I'm sure the NHC is going to upgrade it to a major in postanalysis.

And then there's the Northeast USA landfall. OK, it wasn't a tight-core tropical deal and maybe it wasn't technically a hurricane when the center crossed the Jersey coast, but no matter: it was a monster cyclone that will be remembered up there with past historic storms-- in a way that Irene won't.

Right now, Sandy feels "huge". I think it's important, as we compare it to historic events, not to overreact to it-- not to rate it higher because it happened now and many folks here saw it firsthand. That having been said, some of the key metrics suggest this will rank up there with some of the more significant Northeast-USA hurricane events of the last century:

* Pressure. The 946 mb at landfall in NJ was within a few millibars of the Long Island Express 1938 landfall pressure on Long Island. (Bellport reported 946 mb-- however, reanalysis suggests the actual pressure was 941 mb-- so 1938 is still king by a solid margin.)

* Storm Surge. In NYC, Sandy's surge at Battery Park beat the old record set by Donna 1960. Large portions of Manhattan are under water-- due largely to the "perfect approach angle"-- which exposed NYC and Long Island to the strongest winds in the NE quad and perfectly funneled water up into New York Harbor. A majority of Atlantic City was underwater-- and there was widespread, very severe surge flooding across NJ, NY, CT, and RI.

* Winds-- Estimated. Sandy's max sustained winds at landfall were estimated at 70 kt. Several other 'canes have had higher estimated winds at landfall in the Northeast USA: 1938 (105 kt), 1944 (95 kt), Carol 1954 (100 kt), Edna 1954 (105 kt), Donna 1960 (85 kt), Gloria 1985 (75 kt), Bob 1991 (90 kt).

* Winds-- Observed. Sandy's angle of approach and landfall point exposed Metro NYC to the strongest winds-- very unusual-- and that made a difference. All four major NY-Metro airports (EWR, JFK, LGA, and ISP) had Cat-1 hurricane gusts (64 kt+). This might not sound like a big deal to people along the Gulf Coast or in the Caribbean, but up above the Mason-Dixon line, that's huge. I don't believe that's happened in any other past cyclone.

* Size. This was a real differentiator for Sandy. We measure a cyclone's size by the radius of gales (34-kt winds) from the center. By this metric, Sandy was one of the largest cyclones—if not the largest cyclone—of tropical origin ever to hit the USA, with a gale radius of up to ~480 mi (420 n mi) and a diameter of almost 1,000 miles! That exposed an enormous stretch of American coastline—and many millions of residents—to dangerous winds. More importantly, it was the enormous coverage of these winds that helped propel record storm surges along such a large stretch of coast—all the way up to eastern New England.

Comparisons to Katrina strike me as overblown and silly. But Sandy's USA landfall was clearly a big event. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the coming days.

EDIT: See an expanded, more detailed version of this entry in my iCyclone blog post: http://icyclone.com/...tober-2012.html

EDIT2: The blue part (Re: size) was added later, to reflect reader feedback.

[am19psu]

The only comparison I can see to Katrina might be on total losses in dollars. This is certainly going to be #2 all time and it might approach Katrina's $108B.

You left out one other interesting meteorological aspect - the 1000+ mi gale diameter. This was the largest Atlantic tropical cyclone on record.

[Srain]

The only comparison I can see to Katrina might be on total losses in dollars. This is certainly going to be #2 all time and it might approach Katrina's $108B.

You left out one other interesting meteorological aspect - the 1000+ mi gale diameter. This was the largest Atlantic tropical cyclone on record.

This. With less than 24 hour post landfall we really have no clue what the $ amount will be when all is said and done and certainly with surge records falling along with fact of the hybrid nature as well as societal impacts, we are sort of in uncharted territory and should probably save this discussion for another day.

[Sunny and Warm]

This. With less than 24 hour post landfall we really have no clue what the $ amount will be when all is said and done and certainly with surge records falling along with fact of the hybrid nature as well as societal impacts, we are sort of in uncharted territory and should probably save this discussion for another day.

agree. For the people living through Sandy, it is certainly Katrina in every sense of the word from their pespective. It should not be for us sitting in our warm houses a thousand miles away to judge local reactions until later.

[HurricaneJosh]

The only comparison I can see to Katrina might be on total losses in dollars. This is certainly going to be #2 all time and it might approach Katrina's $108B.

You left out one other interesting meteorological aspect - the 1000+ mi gale diameter. This was the largest Atlantic tropical cyclone on record.

Good point-- that could be another good metric to compare.

[HurricaneJosh]

By the way, I expanded on the above and made it into a blog post-- with more stats, etc.:

http://icyclone.com/now/2012/oct/30-october-2012.html

[HurricaneJosh]

agree. For the people living through Sandy, it is certainly Katrina in every sense of the word from their pespective. It should not be for us sitting in our warm houses a thousand miles away to judge local reactions until later.

Actually, I disagree. First off, you don't need to be from New York to compare the events. (If we held everyone to this standard-- that they had to be there to compare historical events- no one would be able to compare anything. ) Secondly, I am from New York-- I grew up there-- and was on the phone all night with my mother (who rode it out alone) and friends.

Almost 2,000 people were killed in Katrina and an American city lost half its population and essentially shut down for months. That is not the case with this. Maybe the dollar damage might compare, but that's because NYC is a much, much larger city on a greater scale than New Orleans.

I really think going overboard like this hurts the discussion. It was not Katrina.

[NaoPos]

Actually, I disagree. First off, you don't need to be from New York to compare the events. (If we held everyone to this standard-- that they had to be there to compare historical events- no one would be able to compare anything. ) Secondly, I am from New York-- I grew up there-- and was on the phone all night with my mother (who rode it out alone) and friends.

Almost 2,000 people were killed in Katrina and an American city lost half its population and essentially shut down for months. That is not the case with this. Maybe the dollar damage might compare, but that's because NYC is a much, much larger city on a greater scale than New Orleans.

I really think going overboard like this hurts the discussion. It was not Katrina.

Katrina was Katrina (worst case scenario for NO, immediate gulf coast).. Sandy is becoming that In essence to NYC. The worst cast scenario.

Lets not try compares the two. Both are high end disasters. Katrina was an unimaginable loss of life in this day and age though.

[Sunny and Warm]

Actually, I disagree. First off, you don't need to be from New York to compare the events. (If we held everyone to this standard-- that they had to be there to compare historical events- no one would be able to compare anything. ) Secondly, I am from New York-- I grew up there-- and was on the phone all night with my mother (who rode it out alone) and friends.

Almost 2,000 people were killed in Katrina and an American city lost half its population and essentially shut down for months. That is not the case with this. Maybe the dollar damage might compare, but that's because NYC is a much, much larger city on a greater scale than New Orleans.

I really think going overboard like this hurts the discussion. It was not Katrina.

2,000 people didn't die from Katrina. They died from poorly designed and maintained levees in conjunction with poor govt emergency planning. Same for quite a bit of damage in NOLA. As you'll recall, NOLA survived Katrina just fine, and the problems happened after the storm passed. It was the human failings as noted above which caused the catastrophe. Katrina was an awesome force of nature, but let's not lose sight of what caused a lot of the problems down there.

[HurricaneJosh]

Katrina was Katrina (worst case scenario for NO, immediate gulf coast).. Sandy is becoming that In essence to NYC. The worst cast scenario.

Lets not try compares the two. Both are high end disasters. Katrina was an unimaginable loss of life in this day and age though.

That was my original point.

[NaoPos]

That was my original point.

I was agreeing with you in that regard.

[HurricaneJosh]

2,000 people didn't die from Katrina. They died from poorly designed and maintained levees in conjunction with poor govt emergency planning. Same for quite a bit of damage in NOLA. As you'll recall, NOLA survived Katrina just fine. It was the human failings as noted above which caused the catastrophe. Katrina was an awesone force of nature, but let's not lose sight of what caused a lot of the problems down there.

Nope. Check the NHC's official death tolls for hurricane events.

Your exclusion of Katrina fatalities is absurd. Using your reasoning, every time someone dies in a collapsed building or from flying debris in any hurricane, they're really dying from a man-made engineering failure (or poor planning) and not from the hurricane-- in which case, every hurricane-fatalities list needs to be whittle down to nothing.

This is a silly conversation.

[HurricaneJosh]

The only comparison I can see to Katrina might be on total losses in dollars. This is certainly going to be #2 all time and it might approach Katrina's $108B.

P.S. Estimates I've heard for Sandy so far range from $20 billion to $45 billion (mentioned in my blog post).

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

I just got into a huge argument with a friend who is a historian and has been blasting the media's 'hype' about this being one of the "biggest, deadliest storms in history." He was trying to compare deaths in the past and how other storms had higher death tolls, not understanding that modern warning systems reduce deaths for storms of similar magnitudes.

With that said, I'll be interested to see where exactly between Ike/Andrew and Katrina that Sandy falls in the total damage amounts. There is still a LOT to account for.

[HurricaneJosh]

I just got into a huge argument with a friend who is a historian and has been blasting the media's 'hype' about this being one of the "biggest, deadliest storms in history." He was trying to compare deaths in the past and how other storms had higher death tolls, not understanding that modern warning systems reduce deaths for storms of similar magnitudes.

With that said, I'll be interested to see where exactly between Ike/Andrew and Katrina that Sandy falls in the total damage amounts. There is still a LOT to account for.

I totally agree with your friend. This was a very bad storm, but it needs to be viewed in proper context. See my blog entry. We're supposed to be the cool heads-- and cool heads compare stats, not feelings.

The danger of exaggerating Sandy's impact is that when another 1938 comes along, we won't have any vocabulary left to describe it.

Dollar-damage-wise, someone above said it and I agree-- Sandy will probably be No. 2 after Katrina.

[CharlestonNYC]

I totally agree with your friend. This was a very bad storm, but it needs to be viewed in proper context. See my blog entry. We're supposed to be the cool heads-- and cool heads compare stats, not feelings.

The danger of exaggerating Sandy's impact is that when another 1938 comes along, we won't have any vocabulary left to describe it.

Dollar-damage-wise, someone above said it and I agree-- Sandy will probably be No. 2 after Katrina.

I don't think I agree. The corridor of heavy damage is along some of the most expensive real estate and infrastructure in the country.

[BuffaloWeather]

I totally agree with your friend. This was a very bad storm, but it needs to be viewed in proper context. See my blog entry. We're supposed to be the cool heads-- and cool heads compare stats, not feelings.

The danger of exaggerating Sandy's impact is that when another 1938 comes along, we won't have any vocabulary left to describe it.

Dollar-damage-wise, someone above said it and I agree-- Sandy will probably be No. 2 after Katrina.

Turn on the news, this looks just like Katrina did. Jersey has neighborhoods completely flooded up to the roofs of homes. Obviously these locations are not built under sea level but this will not result in as many deaths as Katrina (Due to Katrina affecting many poverty stricken regions in addition to the lack of leadership from the presidency and FEMA) It took them days to even help out that poor city. This time around FEMA and the presidency is competent in getting this thing under control. Several levees breached in sandy and left entire neighborhoods completely flooded. I have a feeling this storm will approach Katrina in damage cost easily.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

I totally agree with your friend. This was a very bad storm, but it needs to be viewed in proper context. See my blog entry. We're supposed to be the cool heads-- and cool heads compare stats, not feelings.

The danger of exaggerating Sandy's impact is that when another 1938 comes along, we won't have any vocabulary left to describe it.

Dollar-damage-wise, someone above said it and I agree-- Sandy will probably be No. 2 after Katrina.

When gauging historical proportions of a storm, you cannot use deaths as a metric. You can rank the deadliest, but using deaths as a metric to gauge historical proportions of a storm... especially scientific ones... will fail you. See 1900 Galveston vs. Hurricane Ike, for instance.

As of right now, Sandy has set the bar for NYC and NJ. Just look at the record water levels produced in NYH and along the NJ coastline. Sure another 1938 would have been more destructive... but 1938 also didn't affect NYC and NJ in the same ways. It's important for places like NYC to have this higher bar so they can go above and beyond this when they repair and rebuild their infrastructure to prepare it for something more like a 1938.

[HurricaneJosh]

I don't think I agree. The corridor of heavy damage is along some of the most expensive real estate and infrastructure in the country.

So when a Cat 3 approaches this same corridor, how will you convey that to these residents? Will you make up new words to describe how bad it is-- since you used all the other words up on a Cat-1 nor'easter?

Turn on the news, this looks just like Katrina did. Jersey has neighborhoods completely flooded up to the roofs of homes. Obviously these locations are not built under sea level but this will not result in as many deaths as Katrina (Due to Katrina affecting many poverty stricken regions in addition to the lack of leadership from the presidency and FEMA) It took them days to even help out that poor city. This time around FEMA and the presidency is competent in getting this thing under control. Several levees breached in sandy and left entire neighborhoods completely flooded. I have a feeling this storm will approach Katrina in damage cost easily.

I'm as informed as you. Whole neighborhoods get flooded out every year somewhere in the USA-- that does not make it Katrina. Katrina completely devastated and shut down a large American city, with almost 2,000 dead, bodies rotting on the streets for days, complete chaos and lawlessness for weeks, and a permanently-reduced population. The city never really recovered. That is not happening here. Stop-- it is insulting to Katrina victims.

I agree with you Re: the FEMA response this time around.

[HurricaneJosh]

When gauging historical proportions of a storm, you cannot use deaths as a metric. You can rank the deadliest, but using deaths as a metric to gauge historical proportions of a storm... especially scientific ones... will fail you. See 1900 Galveston vs. Hurricane Ike, for instance.

You said the media described it as one of the deadliest of the century! Now you're saying I can't use death-toll figures to refute that claim? Make sense!

As of right now, Sandy has set the bar for NYC and NJ. Just look at the record water levels produced in NYH and along the NJ coastline. Sure another 1938 would have been more destructive... but 1938 also didn't affect NYC and NJ in the same ways. It's important for places like NYC to have this higher bar so they can go above and beyond this when they repair and rebuild their infrastructure to prepare it for something more like a 1938.

OK. We agree it was a very bad storm. Not sure what we're arguing about here.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

You said the media described it as one of the deadliest of the century! Now you're saying I can't use death-toll figures to refute that claim? Make sense!

Sorry, that was my friend's claim, not mine. I did not see them say that. I was saying to him, however, that if the Mayor of NYC said this was the deadliest storm in history for NYC, that the jury is still out on that as 1) I don't have a full list of deaths caused by hurricanes in NYC... although I imagine it isn't very long... and 2) we don't know how many deaths Sandy has caused yet.

OK. We agree it was a very bad storm. Not sure what we're arguing about here.

I wasn't arguing with you? lol

[CharlestonNYC]

So when a Cat 3 approaches this same corridor, how will you convey that to these residents? Will you make up new words to describe how bad it is-- since you used all the other words up on a Cat-1 nor'easter?

I'm as informed as you. Whole neighborhoods get flooded out every year somewhere in the USA-- that does not make it Katrina. Katrina completely devastated and shut down a large American city, with almost 2,000 dead, bodies rotting on the streets for days, complete chaos and lawlessness for weeks, and a permanently-reduced population. The city never really recovered. That is not happening here. Stop-- it is insulting to Katrina victims.

I agree with you Re: the FEMA response this time around.

Who cares right now about what people will say if/when a stronger storm comes along? As of TODAY, this damage is unprecedented in the northeast. If and when something worse happens, then it will simply be described as "even worse than Sandy..." I don't really see your point here...

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh, has it ever occurred to you that your hurricane snobbery may be slanting your opinion here? You seem to be out of step with everyone else on this board.

It's the opposite of what you're saying. A hurricane has hit the Mid-Atlantic region, so of course a Mid-Atlantic weather board is going to really feel the storm and react emotionally to it. As someone who 1) grew up in the Mid-Atlantic, 2) has been in a gazillion hurricanes in the Mid-Atlantic and everywhere else, and 3) really studies the history of hurricane impacts, I trust my opinion here.

I blogged about it this morning-- using actual data to put Sandy in an historical context: http://icyclone.com/...tober-2012.html

Describing this as a bad storm or one of the worst storms of the century in the NY Metro area or the worst of the century in NJ is reasonable. Comparing it to Katrina is stupid and not supportable.

[HurricaneJosh]

Who cares right now about what people will say if/when a stronger storm comes along? As of TODAY, this damage is unprecedented in the northeast. If and when something worse happens, then it will simply be described as "even worse than Sandy..." I don't really see your point here...

No, it isn't unprecedented in the Northeast. Have you ever read anything about the 1938 hurricane-- what happened along the LI, CT, and RI coastlines? Whole towns obliterated. Much of New London destroyed. The geography of the region permanently transformed. Hundreds dead.

[HurricaneJosh]

Folks, read some history before describing something as unprecedented. "Unprecedented" doesn't mean "hasn't happened since I started following hurricanes".