Atlantic Tropical Action 2012 - Part II

[CharlestonNYC]

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.

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

That is simply not true. It is unprecedented in the sense that the population mass and infrastructure in place and simple number of people affected as a result of this storm has NEVER occurred in this part of the country. There were NYC subways in 1938 and the MTA made a statement that in the subway's history, they have never dealt with such destruction. The tunnels are filled with water. Underground parking garages are completely inundated, with cars floating out of their tops. The sand dunes that were put in place along the Jersey Shore and LI South Shore FOR such a hurricane did not hold. NONE of these were present in 1938, yet yesterday's destruction STILL happened. You are generally one of the most level-headed posters on this board; I don't understand what point you are trying to prove. You can start by not insulting me and others.

[HurricaneJosh]

In your opinion only...

Many on here disagree with you...

What metrics make it comparable to Katrina? Deaths? Dollar damage? Intensity? Pressure? Winds? Surge? Which metric?

Did Sandy permanently ruin a large American city and permanently displace hundreds of thousands of people to neighboring cities, causing a noticeable regional population migration? Did Sandy reduce an American city to complete chaos? Are there bodies rotting in the streets of NYC? Have the authorities lost control of NYC or Atlantic City?

Don't just say your emotions tell you this makes it as bad as Katrina. Give me a reasoned argument here.

[HurricaneJosh]

That is simply not true. It is unprecedented in the sense that the population mass and infrastructure in place and simple number of people affected as a result of this storm has NEVER occurred in this part of the country. There were NYC subways in 1938 and the MTA made a statement that in the subway's history, they have never dealt with such destruction. The tunnels are filled with water. Underground parking garages are completely inundated, with cars floating out of their tops. The sand dunes that were put in place along the Jersey Shore and LI South Shore FOR such a hurricane did not hold. NONE of these were present in 1938, yet yesterday's destruction STILL happened. You are generally one of the most level-headed posters on this board; I don't understand what point you are trying to prove. You can start by not insulting me and others.

As a meteorological event, Sandy is not unprecedented. Saying it's unprecedented because the stricken area is more built-up now and has more infrastructure means that pretty-much any time a hurricane hits a place that hasn't been hit in a while, the event is "unprecedented". The 1938 hurricane was also unprecedented, since it was the first major in a very long time in Metro NYC. Hazel 1954 was unprecedented, because NYC, DC, and other major I95 cities all got raked by sustained hurricane winds.

Maybe we're using the term differently. In my book, "unprecedented" is a precious word-- to be used with care.

[HurricaneJosh]

I'm surprised by the push back I'm getting here. My overall impression Re: Sandy was WOW-- this was a really bad storm-- way worse than I expected it to be. And that's what inspired me to write the blog entry-- because I was really impressed with the scale of the event and felt it deserved to be compared with past greats.

But it seems that I'm not quite worshiping the event with enough unconditional deference.

[Sunny and Warm]

What metrics make it comparable to Katrina? Deaths? Dollar damage? Intensity? Pressure? Winds? Surge? Which metric?

Did Sandy permanently ruin a large American city and permanently displace hundreds of thousands of people to neighboring cities, causing a noticeable regional population migration? Did Sandy reduce an American city to complete chaos? Are there bodies rotting in the streets of NYC? Have the authorities lost control of NYC or Atlantic City?

Don't just say your emotions tell you this makes it as bad as Katrina. Give me a reasoned argument here.

I will later. Have to take a break for dinner now LOL.

[CharlestonNYC]

As a meteorological event, Sandy is not unprecedented. Saying it's unprecedented because the stricken area is more built-up now and has more infrastructure means that pretty-much any time a hurricane hits a place that hasn't been hit in a while, the event is "unprecedented".

Just to argue this point, I don't think anyone used the terminology "unprecedented" last year when Irene hit the same area. That is because, despite it being the first hurricane to hit the area "in a place that hasn't been hit in a while," the damage was not, in fact, unprecedented.

[HurricaneJosh]

I will later. Have to take a break for dinner now LOL.

Enjoy.

Just to argue this point, I don't think anyone used the terminology "unprecedented" last year when Irene hit the same area. That is because, despite it being the first hurricane to hit the area "in a place that hasn't been hit in a while," the damage was not, in fact, unprecedented.

Read the Irene threads. There were some hysterical claims Re: the historic nature of it-- due to some of the inland flooding.

Of course, Irene doesn't hold a candle to Sandy. Sandy is a huge event that will be discussed for decades to come.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Also does anyone know the final, tropical, physical size of Sandy in comparison with Tip? I'm sure Tip edges out Sandy, but I'd like to know.

[dan88]

Also does anyone know the final, tropical, physical size of Sandy in comparison with Tip? I'm sure Tip edges out Sandy, but I'd like to know.

Looking at the best track, 820nm/944sm appears to be the largest diameter while it was tropical, with the last 21z advisory. This was based on 420nm NE and 400nm SW. The maximum expand was 450nm in the NE quad at some earlier advisories, but at all these time no other quadrant exceeded 360nm. It appears Tip reached 1,380sm, so roughly 435sm larger.

[HurricaneJosh]

Looking at the best track, 820nm/944sm appears to be the largest diameter while it was tropical, with the last 21z advisory. This was based on 420nm NE and 400nm SW. The maximum expand was 450nm in the NE quad at some earlier advisories, but at all these time no other quadrant exceeded 360nm. It appears Tip reached 1,380sm, so roughly 435sm larger.

Did Sandy have the largest known gale diameter of a landfalling 'cane/extratropical storm in the USA? Does anyone know? I wand to add this metric to my blog post.

[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.

Hey, Adam-- I decided to add this in-- both here and in my blog post. You're right-- it's a very important part of the picture, and one that I shouldn't have neglected.

[Ensō]

Did Sandy have the largest known gale diameter of a landfalling 'cane/extratropical storm in the USA? Does anyone know? I wand to add this metric to my blog post.

I saw that claim somewhere but I can't recall where. If I find it I'll post, but I would not be the least bit surprised.

And not that we need another voice Re: the Sandy/Katrina argument, but I wholly agree with you Josh. I think the point is this. Sandy was an exceptional meteorological event, and there's no doubt we'll be talking about this and conducting research for a long time to come. There was certainly some extensive damage, and for the folks who are suffering through it right now I'm sure it feels like Katrina.

But, let's use our common sense here. Katrina was one of the most destructive, deadly hurricanes in US history. Sure, some of that was because of the poorly designed levees and the other human errors that exacerbated the situation. But those failures would not have come about had Katrina not hit. I understand the desire to immediately compare any terrible event that happens, but it does a disservice to both Sandy and Katrina, and their victims/survivors.

Sandy was NOT Katrina, but neither was any other hurricane. I think the point Josh is making -- and I agree with it -- is that, if we hype this up (as not many, but some are doing) beyond reality, we're losing sight of the fact that this could easily have been a whole lot worse. As powerful and massive as Sandy was, I think we can all agree that it would be dwarfed if a very large, major hurricane were to take the same sort of angle of attack. In some sense, hyping this up makes it seem as if this is as bad as it can get. It isn't.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

[HurricaneJosh]

I saw that claim somewhere but I can't recall where. If I find it I'll post, but I would not be the least bit surprised.

And not that we need another voice Re: the Sandy/Katrina argument, but I wholly agree with you Josh. I think the point is this. Sandy was an exceptional meteorological event, and there's no doubt we'll be talking about this and conducting research for a long time to come. There was certainly some extensive damage, and for the folks who are suffering through it right now I'm sure it feels like Katrina.

But, let's use our common sense here. Katrina was one of the most destructive, deadly hurricanes in US history. Sure, some of that was because of the poorly designed levees and the other human errors that exacerbated the situation. But those failures would not have come about had Katrina not hit. I understand the desire to immediately compare any terrible event that happens, but it does a disservice to both Sandy and Katrina, and their victims/survivors.

Sandy was NOT Katrina, but neither was any other hurricane. I think the point Josh is making -- and I agree with it -- is that, if we hype this up (as not many, but some are doing) beyond reality, we're losing sight of the fact that this could easily have been a whole lot worse. As powerful and massive as Sandy was, I think we can all agree that it would be dwarfed if a very large, major hurricane were to take the same sort of angle of attack. In some sense, hyping this up makes it seem as if this is as bad as it can get. It isn't.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

Awesome post.

Thank you for saying it more eloquently than I was able to. I appreciate it!

[eyewall]

Awesome post.

Thank you for saying it more eloquently than I was able to. I appreciate it!

If I can chime in I think Sandy will teach us not to be so heavily dependent on category number when it comes to surge evacuation. The fetch, timing, and angle of approach were clearly more important this go around.

[HurricaneJosh]

If I can chime in I think Sandy will teach us not to be so heavily dependent on category number when it comes to surge evacuation. The fetch, timing, and angle of approach were clearly more important this go around.

I think everyone across the board is in agreement about that. It's why the NHC calls the SS scale a "wind scale" now. Ike was another example.

By the way, the NHC's forecasts Re: winds and tides were spot on. They nailed this.

[Ensō]

Awesome post.

Thank you for saying it more eloquently than I was able to. I appreciate it!

Thanks Josh!

If I can chime in I think Sandy will teach us not to be so heavily dependent on category number when it comes to surge evacuation. The fetch, timing, and angle of approach were clearly more important this go around.

Absolutely. I would hope people would know that already, but.. well.. I guess not. Which reminds me: I'm not as familiar with tropical weather as I am severe weather, so I've always wondered why we don't have a more functional rating system. Something that takes into account not only wind speed but also surge potential. At bare minimum the amount of surge the wind (fetch, speed, etc) is capable of producing, but ideally also considering topographical factors of the most likely landfall area like approach angle, off-shore topography, elevation, etc.

Is it too difficult to implement? Do they just not want to confuse the public? I've always wondered.

[eyewall]

Josh yes they did! Some solid forecasting all around! As for changing thinking that is tough for people. They are too accustomed to the Saffir-Simpson ratings. Media loves them too much too.

[Big Jims Videos]

right now dozens of water rescues are still ongoing in Ocean County NJ...and many many more people are trapped, according to my friend on fire and rescue near Toms River. Although it's not Katrina, this is still an ongoing situation as far as saving lives is concerned. We can argue all we want..lets get everyone saved first.

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh yes they did! Some solid forecasting all around! As for changing thinking that is tough for people. They are too accustomed to the Saffir-Simpson ratings. Media loves them too much too.

Agreed-- the media likes simple things-- simple ways of communicating.

right now dozens of water rescues are still ongoing in Ocean County NJ...and many many more people are trapped, according to my friend on fire and rescue near Toms River. Although it's not Katrina, this is still an ongoing situation as far as saving lives is concerned. We can argue all we want..lets get everyone saved first.

I don't think any of this should preclude us from having an interesting discussion on a weather forum Re: the storm's historical significance.

[sojitodd]

What metrics make it comparable to Katrina? Deaths? Dollar damage? Intensity? Pressure? Winds? Surge? Which metric?

Did Sandy permanently ruin a large American city and permanently displace hundreds of thousands of people to neighboring cities, causing a noticeable regional population migration? Did Sandy reduce an American city to complete chaos? Are there bodies rotting in the streets of NYC? Have the authorities lost control of NYC or Atlantic City?

Don't just say your emotions tell you this makes it as bad as Katrina. Give me a reasoned argument here.

I don't see it as 'as bad' as Katrina. Maybe more widespread damage, a greater (and more populated) area affected, etc. But 'as bad as Katrina'? No. I would say that based on the Mississippi coast damage alone(besides NO) Katrina was worse. No area affected by Sandy(including Jersey shore) can compare to the intensity and extreme nature of the damage along the entire Mississippi coast. I would say Andrew, Camille, etc are also 'worse' than Sandy-they brought areas to their knees for decades also.

Sandy was just a huge, massive, damaging storm that hit an area unaccustomed to such events. I can see people saying that for New York City and the Jersey shore, Sandy was unprecedented(1938 did not hit those areas as hard) and is the new 'benchmark'-and any storms that seem like they will be worse or more damaging than Sandy in this area will be 'This is going to be worse than Sandy'-just like if something more destructive than Katrina(let's say just like Katrina, but with the winds staying cat 5) will be said in the New Orleans/Mississippi area to be be 'going to be worse than Katrina".

This is how it always is. In Charleston, it will be 'worse than Hugo". In Miami, 'worse than Andrew". In New Orleans/Mississippi, it will be 'worse than Katrina'-and they used 'worse than Camille' to describe Katrina to warn people.

In NYC/Jersey shore, the warning for something worse will be 'worse than Sandy'-and in using that, it kind of implies that Sandy is the benchmark, causing unprecedented effects in those particular areas.

Sorry if this is long and rambling but I have had a few cocktails...it has been a long damn(bad) month.

[Sunny and Warm]

I would say Andrew, Camille, etc are also 'worse' than Sandy-they brought areas to their knees for decades also.

I would be interested in the evidence that south FL was brought to its knees by Andrew for DECADES. Number one, it's only been 20 years, and number two, it simply isn't true. Hyperbole much?

[sojitodd]

I would be interested in the evidence that south FL was brought to its knees by Andrew for DECADES. Number one, it's only been 20 years, and number two, it simply isn't true. Hyperbole much?

South Dade county in particular. There was a polulation drop in the areas hit by the northern eyewall, many areas were cleared and vacant for years. I think 'decade' might be more appropriate than 'decades' for Andrew, and I am focusing on the limited area with the most extreme damage. Not South Florida in general as the storm was small and the very severe damage limited. But for those small areas from Homestead up north a bit, I would stand by a 'decade' at least. Aren't there still many empty areas that have not been rebuilt just north of Homestead? Sorry if I gave the wrong impression about that one.

[HurricaneJosh]

I'm taking a break from the whole debate Re: whether Sandy was the worst hurricane ever in the history of this galaxy and all galaxies!!11!1! I'm just through with it. (But I do agree with a lot of sojitodd's post.)

Here's the revised list of this year's 'cane landfalls. Although Sandy's USA landfall might not be considered a 'cane, screw it-- I included it in the list, with (x) to indicate it might have been extratropical, simply because the impact was so heavy. I included NY, as satellite imagery and surface obs indicate the wind core-- and I do believe it still had one-- raked Long Island:

Ernesto (MX) - 80 kt*

Gordon (PT) - 65 kt

Isaac (LA) - 70 kt

Sandy (JM) - 70 kt

Sandy (CU) - 95 kt

Sandy (NJ, NY) - 70 kt(x)

* It was operationally 75 kt-- however, the NHC is likely going to up it a bit in postanalysis.

[Sunny and Warm]

I'm taking a break from the whole debate Re: whether Sandy was the worst hurricane ever in the history of this galaxy and all galaxies!!

Now you're going too far!! Local Group maybe...

I agree, not worth the effort really. Too subjective for a good discussion.

[HurricaneJosh]

Now you're going too far!! Local Group maybe...

I agree, not worth the effort really. Too subjective for a good discussion.

Something we can agree on.

And we can also agree that it was a very bad storm of historic proportions.

[Big Jims Videos]

I will say this. Sandy and Ike had similar precursors to what was to come...the intense high tide cycles leading up to the actual surge. That's my only thoughts, hearing from relatives how eerily high the water was back on Sunday before last night happened, and then seeing the damage first hand and my beaches destroyed.

[HurricaneJosh]

I will say this. Sandy and Ike had similar precursors to what was to come...the intense high tide cycles leading up to the actual surge. That's my only thoughts, hearing from relatives how eerily high the water was back on Sunday before last night happened, and then seeing the damage first hand and my beaches destroyed.

I agree with you-- I think Ike and Sandy are very analogous, for a few reasons:

* Very large circulations.

* Extremely high tides in comparison with the winds.

* Very long-duration events-- with a long period of increasing tides (as you pointed out).

* Took paths that exposed major population centers to the storm's worst.

* SS category did not tell the whole story.

Yeah, there are many similarities here.

[Supercane]

I'm taking a break from the whole debate Re: whether Sandy was the worst hurricane ever in the history of this galaxy and all galaxies!!11!1! I'm just through with it. (But I do agree with a lot of sojitodd's post.)

Here's the revised list of this year's 'cane landfalls. Although Sandy's USA landfall might not be considered a 'cane, screw it-- I included it in the list, with (x) to indicate it might have been extratropical, simply because the impact was so heavy. I included NY, as satellite imagery and surface obs indicate the wind core-- and I do believe it still had one-- raked Long Island:

Ernesto (MX) - 80 kt*

Gordon (PT) - 65 kt

Isaac (LA) - 70 kt

Sandy (JM) - 70 kt

Sandy (CU) - 95 kt

Sandy (NJ, NY) - 80 kt(x)

* It was operationally 75 kt-- however, the NHC is likely going to up it a bit in postanalysis.

As you alluded to earlier, most people will consider Sandy a hurricane hit (even if it isn't one officially) since it didn't transition until just before landfall. And it was already having a significant impact while still a hurricane. I doubt the 1938 hurricane and Hazel were that much more tropical when they hit either.

A small tidbit: The last storm that caused significant damage right after transitioning into a post-TC was Delta (2005), in the Canary Islands. I always wondered if Spain would have requested retirement had it had an actual name.

[HurricaneJosh]

As you alluded to earlier, most people will consider Sandy a hurricane hit (even if it isn't one officially) since it didn't transition until just before landfall. And it was already having a significant impact while still a hurricane. I doubt the 1938 hurricane and Hazel were that much more tropical when they hit either.

Agreed with your points.

One thing Re: Hazel: it hit the Carolinas as an essentially tropical cyclone-- although there are signs it was starting the transition even at landfall. However, by the time it was raking DC and NYC with hurricane winds, it was totally extratropical.

The timing of the 1938 hurricane's transition has been discussed a lot, and I think there are different views about it.

[klw]

Do any of the models develop the blob of convection in the southern Caribbean?