Atlantic Tropical Action 2012 - Part II

[HurricaneJosh]

You know I agree with you from a purely tropical/max sustained wind point of view, but as I've argued with you offline, this storm was very nearly the worst case scenario for the Northeast as a whole. The only thing that was missing was a Cat 3 core. From a surge perspective, it will likely never be worse than this storm given the angle of approach, wide wind field, and timing at high tide.

I think you feel I'm judging this from some weird, tight-core-fetish perspective and I'm not.

I feel like no one here seems to know anything about the 1938 hurricane or what happened in it. It was not worse because it was more tropical and had a core-- it was worse because the winds were way higher, the storm surge was way higher, a tremendous portion of the Northeast USA coast was smashed beyond recognition, and there were more dead bodies in the wreckage.

Not sure what else to say.

P.S. Sandy's track was a worst case for NJ and NYC. It was not a worst case for E Long Island and New England.

[am19psu]

P.S. The track was a worst case for NJ and NYC. It was not a worst case for E Long Island and New England.

Agree with this. And the 1938 track would be worse those places. But Sandy had an IKE for surge of 5.7. I know what 1938 did, but I have a hard time believing, given the historical record of wind fields, that 1938 had a larger overall surge than Sandy did.

[HurricaneJosh]

Agree with this. And the 1938 track would be worse those places. But Sandy had an IKE for surge of 5.7. I know what 1938 did, but I have a hard time believing, given the historical record of wind fields, that 1938 had a larger overall surge than Sandy did.

1. Larger in terms of height or aerial coverage? 1938's was higher.

2. So now surge is the only thing that counts when discussing a hurricane? The spectacular, heavy wind damage across Long Island, CT, RI, and E MA isn't a factor? Sandy had Cat-1 gusts that blew down trees. 1938 had 100-kt winds that smashed the upper floors of brick buildings.

[thewxmann]

I think overall in the scheme of things, Sandy was on the order on the Ash Wednesday storm in terms of total impact (at least in NJ). 1938 is still a notch higher since it was so much stronger and had so much forward momentum going for it.

[OSUmetstud]

I actually don't believe the surge was way higher in 1938...the winds obviously were...there's no comparison, there.

[am19psu]

2. So now surge is the only thing that counts when discussing a hurricane? The spectacular, heavy wind damage across Long Island, CT, RI, and E MA isn't a factor?

Of course not. And I'm not trying to argue this is Katrina or 1938 - it's not. Meteorologically, 1938 is still the king in terms of Northeast hurricanes (and you know how I feel about Northeast hurricanes). BUT, surge is definitely a significant part of a storm's history and I don't know why you are dismissing that the entire Jersey Shore from Cape May to Long Branch, not to mention Manhattan, saw extreme storm tide damage. There is no doubt in my mind this will be a much more memorable storm than Cat 4 Charley, e.g., because of where it hit and how large the swath of destruction was vs. one 20 mi wide swath of intense devastation in a relatively less populated area of W FL.

[HurricaneJosh]

I think overall in the scheme of things, Sandy was on the order on the Ash Wednesday storm in terms of total impact (at least in NJ). 1938 is still a notch higher since it was so much stronger and had so much forward momentum going for it.

I do think 1962 is a much better analogue for Sandy-- the wider coverage and more diffused energy.

And I agree Re: 1938: not only was it more tropical, but there was that forward speed of nearly 50 kt at landfall. That right-front quad came ashore with absolutely ferocious speed and energy. It must have been really scary on E Long Island, E CT, and RI-- the momentum of it coming off the ocean.

[HurricaneJosh]

Of course not. And I'm not trying to argue this is Katrina or 1938 - it's not. Meteorologically, 1938 is still the king in terms of Northeast hurricanes (and you know how I feel about Northeast hurricanes). BUT, surge is definitely a significant part of a storm's history and I don't know why you are dismissing that the entire Jersey Shore from Cape May to Long Branch, not to mention Manhattan, saw extreme storm tide damage. There is no doubt in my mind this will be a much more memorable storm than Cat 4 Charley, e.g., because of where it hit and how large the swath of destruction was vs. one 20 mi wide swath of intense devastation in a relatively less populated area of W FL.

I wasn't comparing it to Charley, so an argument doesn't exist there. This discussion has nothing to do with what kinds of storms I personally find more interesting.

I'm also not dismissing the great impact of Sandy-- not at all. I was so impressed with the storm that I decided to do a whole analysis of the impacts-- to put it in an historical context-- specifically because I understood the magnitude of the event and felt it was worthy.

I am simply disagreeing with claims that it's up there with Katrina or 1938. It just seems like folks have put Sandy on this golden pedestal, and if someone dares to suggest it was anything less than a 10,000-year event-- the worst hurricane in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy-- then they're just way out of line and not getting it.

Sorry-- not fallin' for the hype, not gonna lick Sandy's boots. It was one of the more significant cyclone impacts on the Northeast Coast in the last century. It was not the worst for the Northeast, although it is a contender for NJ's worst.

[am19psu]

It was one of the more significant cyclone impacts on the Northeast Coast in the last century. It was not the worst for the Northeast, although it is a contender for NJ's worst.

We're splitting hairs at this point. I'll take Sandy as #2 all time in the Northeast, though that might be because I think Carol, Edna, etc were garbage. To put it in icep*ssy terms, it sounds (to me, at least) that you are crapping all over the Blizzard of 96 because it wasn't the Superstorm of 93. There is no comparison between the 1996 and 1993 storms, but that doesn't mean that 1996 wasn't memorable or significant.

[HurricaneJosh]

We're splitting hairs at this point. I'll take Sandy as #2 all time in the Northeast, though that might be because I think Carol, Edna, etc were garbage. To put it in icep*ssy terms, it sounds (to me, at least) that you are crapping all over the Blizzard of 96 because it wasn't the Superstorm of 93. There is no comparison between the 1996 and 1993 storms, but that doesn't mean that 1996 wasn't memorable or significant.

I feel like you're creating a straw man. How have I crapped on Sandy? Where have I suggested that the impact wasn't enormous, or that it wasn't memorable or significant? Why would I write a big blog entry about it if I thought it was such crap?

Re: Northeast storms, they weren't all garbage. E Long Island, E CT, and RI were smashed in Carol, and Providence had catastrophic flooding. The scale of that storm was smaller, however-- it was quite narrow for a higher-latitude storm.

[am19psu]

I feel like you're creating a straw man. How have I crapped on Sandy? Where have I suggested that the impact wasn't enormous, or that it wasn't memorable or significant? Why would I write a big blog entry about it if I thought it was such crap?

My perception from reading your posts the last day or so. I really liked your blog post that put it into meteorological perspective and thought it was spot on. But it feels (again, to me) that you're rallying so hard against the Katrina/1938 crowd that you're making it sound less significant than it really was. Like I said, we're splitting hairs and it probably has more to do with reading tone over the internet than anything else.

Still

[HurricaneJosh]

My perception from reading your posts the last day or so. I really liked your blog post that put it into meteorological perspective and thought it was spot on. But it feels (again, to me) that you're rallying so hard against the Katrina/1938 crowd that you're making it sound less significant than it really was. Like I said, we're splitting hairs and it probably has more to do with reading tone over the internet than anything else.

Still

I think it must be a disconnect Re: tone, because I thought my posts were actually playing it up. I feel I've been vilified because I graded Sandy 97% instead of 101% like everyone else. I feel a bit bullied, honestly.

But, anyhoo...

[am19psu]

I think it must be a disconnect Re: tone, because I thought my posts were actually playing it up. I feel I've been vilified because I graded Sandy 97% instead of 101% like everyone else.

Cool. If that's your perception (97%), then I'm totally on board. Glad we cleared that up

[OSUmetstud]

If Sandy had done a slightly wider loop and come in a few hours later, the surge would have been worse than 1938 in the western Long Island Sound I believe. The actual storm surge there was 10 to 13 ft. But, it came in between low tide and neutral tide. If it came in at high tide, there would have been water levels of 16 to 17 ft at Bridgeport, CT, King's Point, LI, and Stamford, CT.

From a meteorological perspective, I'm generally of the thinking this was as anamolous or maybe even slightly more anomalous than the 1938 LI/NE Hurricane.

From a wind perspective, it was pretty meh. Gloria and Bob both had higher wind gusts.

[Ginx snewx]

1954 Carols impact on SE CT and SRI was very similar surge wise to Sandy's impact. The aerials confirm that, what is amazing, Carol came ashore in Old Saybrook Ct near the RI border but Sandy came ashore in SNJ. Surge wise, modern times in SRI this rates way behind 38, tied with 54. Wind wise above Irene but way below any other direct hits. Infrastructure wise, impact,damages , population density effected, Sandy rivals Katrina, obviously absolutely no comparison wind or surge wise.

[Sunny and Warm]

If Sandy had done a slightly wider loop and come in a few hours later, the surge would have been worse than 1938 in the western Long Island Sound I believe. The actual storm surge there was 10 to 13 ft. But, it came in between low tide and neutral tide. If it came in at high tide, there would have been water levels of 16 to 17 ft at Bridgeport, CT, King's Point, LI, and Stamford, CT.

From a meteorological perspective, I'm generally of the thinking this was as anamolous or maybe even slightly more anomalous than the 1938 LI/NE Hurricane.

From a wind perspective, it was pretty meh. Gloria and Bob both had higher wind gusts.

I agree with this. From an anomaly standpoint,I think we get another 1938 and Katrina and Andrew before we get another Sandy. A hurricane embedded in a mid latitude trough doesn't happen just any old day of the week. At one point, the MSLP was 9 SD below normal while off the Jersey coast. That's the definition of extremely anomalous.

[Sunny and Warm]

I think it must be a disconnect Re: tone, because I thought my posts were actually playing it up. I feel I've been vilified because I graded Sandy 97% instead of 101% like everyone else. I feel a bit bullied, honestly.

But, anyhoo...

not being mean spirited here Josh, but your posts have come across as a little snotty at times, and may be tied a little to your purist hurricane feelings. You seem to be more close-minded to other views, and since the majority oppose your viewpoint, it probably does feel like you're being bullied.

I love all types of weather and have no interest in NOLA or Jersey/NYC from a rooting perspective, if one can call it that. Heck, I don't live within 800 miles of either. However, I was in NOLA and along I-10 to Pass Christian, MS just after Katrina, and the damage in the northeast is extremely similar to Katrina, but on a larger scale. Katrina's damage, IMHO, was more intense and focused along the coastline, while Sandy's is broader and less intense. In the end, you will likely see damage totals from Sandy far exceed that of Katrina. As I've said before, when rating a storm, I discount deaths quite a bit as they can be greatly influenced by poor decision-making or poor infrastructure or poor communications or all of the above. Otherwise, the greatest cyclone in history was in Bangladesh when 250,000 people died. I also dock Katrina's damage in NOLA as mainly due to infrastructure faults. A lesser storm than Katrina probably would have contributed to the levee breaks in NOLA the day after it passed.

[dtk]

I agree with this. From an anomaly standpoint,I think we get another 1938 and Katrina and Andrew before we get another Sandy. A hurricane embedded in a mid latitude trough doesn't happen just any old day of the week. At one point, the MSLP was 9 SD below normal while off the Jersey coast. That's the definition of extremely anomalous.

Where is this 9 SD stuff coming from....the ensemble forecast products relative to a 30 year climatology?

[Sunny and Warm]

Where is this 9 SD stuff coming from....the ensemble forecast products relative to a 30 year climatology?

It was posted by a Met in a thread on this board I believe sometime Monday morning. He included model screenshots and all. I'm pretty sure it was in either the NYC or NE forums. Sorry I can't pin it down further. Hopefuly someone else will see this and post the link.

[HurricaneJosh]

not being mean spirited here Josh, but your posts have come across as a little snotty at times, and may be tied a little to your purist hurricane feelings. You seem to be more close-minded to other views, and since the majority oppose your viewpoint, it probably does feel like you're being bullied.

I love all types of weather and have no interest in NOLA or Jersey/NYC from a rooting perspective, if one can call it that. Heck, I don't live within 800 miles of either. However, I was in NOLA and along I-10 to Pass Christian, MS just after Katrina, and the damage in the northeast is extremely similar to Katrina, but on a larger scale. Katrina's damage, IMHO, was more intense and focused along the coastline, while Sandy's is broader and less intense. In the end, you will likely see damage totals from Sandy far exceed that of Katrina. As I've said before, when rating a storm, I discount deaths quite a bit as they can be greatly influenced by poor decision-making or poor infrastructure or poor communications or all of the above. Otherwise, the greatest cyclone in history was in Bangladesh when 250,000 people died. I also dock Katrina's damage in NOLA as mainly due to infrastructure faults. A lesser storm than Katrina probably would have contributed to the levee breaks in NOLA the day after it passed.

You haven't been reading my posts and have made no attempt to understand my point. It has zero to do with what kind of hurricane I like. If you're going to make historical comparisons, understand the history.

The Katrina comparison remains silly. Katrina isn't unique because it smashed the MS coast or because the wind radii were large-- it's unique because it killed more Americans than any other storm in modern times and caused the comprehensive, long-term socioeconomic meltdown of a major American city-- along with a large-scale, permanent population migration out of that city and into other cities (Baton Rouge, Houston, Atlanta). Large portions of New Orleans have been abandoned and won't be rebuilt. Is there a large American city that is completely devastated, shutdown, and lawless, with almost 2,000 dead, and human bodies rotting in the streets like garbage, due to Sandy? My mother lives in Manhattan and she says things are already getting back to normal for much of the city. (Obviously, Downtown is still without power and the subways system is crippled, but there's also a lot of normalcy above 40th St.)

Sandy is a huge event. But your making this comparison says to me that you don't comprehend the nation-changing enormity of Katrina.

Stop this.

[HurricaneJosh]

This population graph really conveys the enormity of Katrina's impact. You don't see this sort of thing in major Western, industrialized cities. Katrina really was unprecedented for the USA:

[HurricaneJosh]

WOW. Are you serious?? Really serious?? Katrina was region changing and/or coasal changing, but stop using the words nation changing. That's just breathtakingly absurd to me. 9/11 was nation changing fyi. Remember, most peple don't think about weather calamities as you and I might.

Actually, the problem here is that you are viewing it through only a weather-nerd prism, and not understanding the larger significance of Katrina.

Yes, Katrina was nation-changing. The crisis brought to the surface several big national issues-- poverty and economic inequality, our crumbling infrastructure (as you pointed out the other day, the catastrophe was at least partially man-made), and the role of federal government, to name three. These are national issues, and Katrina remains the most potent reminder of these issues. It remains central to the ongoing discussion about them.

P.S. As an ultra-hurricane-nerd, I have very little interest in Katrina. From my perspective, it was an ugly, falling-apart cyclone with a crappy radar signature at landfall-- not my cup of tea at all. But I can still understand the significance of it, beyond my nerd perspective.

[Ground Scouring]

Regarding comparisons between Sandy and other historic hurricane in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, I think that evidence suggests that the 1938 hurricane was at least as large as, and likely larger than, Sandy as it neared the Bahamas and later struck the Northeastern CONUS. The sources that I used to make such an estimate can be found here, here, here, and finally here. I have also relied upon knowledge I have gleaned from numerous other and printed resources such as books and journals that are often not available online.

A summary is as follows:

On September 19, there were reported gales with simultaneous pressure readings of 1005 mb or lower more than 520 n mi NW of the center and likely an equal or similar distance to its NE. At this time, the estimated 1000-mb SLP contour (outer closed isobar) is reanalyzed as being more than ~420 n mi in diameter. It grew to more than ~500 n mi on September 20 and September 21 as it accelerated toward Long Island, NY. Due to the strong ridge to the northeast of the cyclone at this time, as well as over the next several days, the cyclone likely featured gales more than 600 n mi from the center, especially as it was already a large cyclone on September 19 that expanded greatly as it began approaching the Bahamas. During this time frame, the cyclone was extremely intense, above 125 kt and as high as 140 kt, according to reanalysis, before recurving. Ships on September 20 reported 70-kt winds and pressures as low as 953 mb about ~55 n mi from the center--outside the RMW--due to the large RMW and size of the storm--indicating that the actual central pressure was likely at or below 920 mb. A good analog seems to be Hurricane Floyd (1999), which according to NHC advisories had TS winds nearly 300 n mi from the center as it peaked at 135 kt/921 mb near the Bahamas; the main difference is that the 1938 hurricane seems to have been even stronger and far larger as it peaked at 140 kt in the same general area. It was definitely even larger by the time it passed E of Cape Hatteras, NC, and later struck near Bellport, NY. (Note that the reanalysis paper I posted shows a peak intensity of 115-120 kt, but this is the draft of the document; later, edited versions I have seen elsewhere still keep the current peak intensity of 140 kt.)

Given that the 1938 hurricane was moving much faster--more than 50 kt--as it made landfall on NY, was at least as large as Sandy was, and was much more intense (105 kt/941 mb vs. 70 kt/946 mb for Sandy), I think there is no question that the 1938 hurricane was much more severe than Sandy. Also, check out the first source as well as numerous other sources that give documented storm-surge values of 17-20+ feet for the 1938 hurricane, which makes sense given its larger size, faster movement, angle of approach (the funneling into Narragansett Bay and other convex bodies of water on Long Island / in SNE), and greater intensity. Sandy, with its peak surge values of about 14 feet, does not hold a candle to those of the 1938 hurricane. (Interestingly, page 52 of this great document--which includes storm-surge values from a variety of hurricanes and is a must-read--shows a storm surge of 6.3 ft near Sandy Hook, NJ, and even a measurement of 9.5 ft near the Brooklyn Bridge on the East River. These values were all taken during the 1938 hurricane.) The document shown in the previous sentence also shows a storm-surge value of 10.5 ft near Lake Como, NJ, after the 1944 hurricane--see p. 60. The same page shows numerous NJ observations above 7 ft, including 8.4 ft near Sandy Hook. I believe the 10.5-ft value is higher than anything Sandy produced in most of NJ. This source also gives values of about 8.5 ft at Atlantic City, NJ, during the non-tropical Ash Wednesday storm of 1962.

Based upon all these data, objectively, the 1938 and 1944 hurricanes seem to have been much more severe than Sandy was in NJ and the Northeast, while the 1962 system was roughly equivalent to Sandy or a bit more severe. Also, I think there is absolutely no comparison between the major storm surge that hit MS during Camille and Katrina--plus similar legendary Gulf values like those during the 1900 and 1915 hurricanes, Carla 1961, etc.--and that which hit NJ and the Northeast during Sandy. Sandy was far weaker than the Gulf storms and did not hit a shallow coastal shelf (meaning bigger waves in the case of Sandy, which may have caused much of the worst surge damage).

So while Sandy should be rightly regarded as severe--after all, events even on its scale do not happen every year--but it is far from the regional benchmark and is far from exceptional and/or unprecedented.

[HurricaneJosh]

Regarding comparisons between Sandy and other historic hurricane in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast,...

So while Sandy should be rightly regarded as severe--after all, events even on its scale do not happen every year--but it is far from the regional benchmark and is far from exceptional and/or unprecedented.

Great post, snowflake. As always, I appreciate the level of research and detail in your posts. At the end of the day, the only way to compare historical events is with research and facts.

[CT Rain]

Josh - here in CT Sandy was no doubt destructive - but we lucked out.

Peak surge (10-12 feet west of New Haven!) came at low tide. We would have experienced a 1938 or worse surge in Sandy had the storm struck 3 or 4 hours later.

That said, the overall impact was far behind other storms that have hit Connecticut. Carol and 1938 were far and away more severe in the state.

For NYC obviously this became a "perfect storm" for storm surge given the huge wind field, angle of approach, and timing.

[Ground Scouring]

Great post, snowflake. As always, I appreciate the level of research and detail in your posts. At the end of the day, the only way to compare historical events is with research and facts.

I might also add that, objectively, anyone who looks at photos of the NJ coast after the 1938 and 1944 hurricanes would conclude that those two storms were definitely more severe than Sandy was--and that 1962 Ash Wednesday and Sandy were roughly equal. In many areas of the state, elevations and large topographic features have not changed substantially since the 1930s, so one can compare different events and gain relatively objective insight as to how severe historical surge impacts were. I think anyone who is trying to compare Sandy to Katrina needs to compare photos of Waveland, MS, and other such locales to those on the NJ coast after Sandy. The former show total devastation--with empty foundation after empty foundation--while in NJ at least many homes are still standing, albeit with interior flood damage. (Even in the New York area, the scene looks quite similar to that in NJ.) So by local and national standards, Sandy was far from the most severe impact, although regionally it was still respectably severe--if only because storms of its magnitude, or of 1938-style impact, are not exactly every-other-year occurrences.

[OSUmetstud]

Regarding comparisons between Sandy and other historic hurricane in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, I think that evidence suggests that the 1938 hurricane was at least as large as, and likely larger than, Sandy as it neared the Bahamas and later struck the Northeastern CONUS. The sources that I used to make such an estimate can be found here, here, here, and finally here. I have also relied upon knowledge I have gleaned from numerous other and printed resources such as books and journals that are often not available online.

A summary is as follows:

On September 19, there were reported gales with simultaneous pressure readings of 1005 mb or lower more than 520 n mi NW of the center and likely an equal or similar distance to its NE. At this time, the estimated 1000-mb SLP contour (outer closed isobar) is reanalyzed as being more than ~420 n mi in diameter. It grew to more than ~500 n mi on September 20 and September 21 as it accelerated toward Long Island, NY. Due to the strong ridge to the northeast of the cyclone at this time, as well as over the next several days, the cyclone likely featured gales more than 600 n mi from the center, especially as it was already a large cyclone on September 19 that expanded greatly as it began approaching the Bahamas. During this time frame, the cyclone was extremely intense, above 125 kt and as high as 140 kt, according to reanalysis, before recurving. Ships on September 20 reported 70-kt winds and pressures as low as 953 mb about ~55 n mi from the center--outside the RMW--due to the large RMW and size of the storm--indicating that the actual central pressure was likely at or below 920 mb. A good analog seems to be Hurricane Floyd (1999), which according to NHC advisories had TS winds nearly 300 n mi from the center as it peaked at 135 kt/921 mb near the Bahamas; the main difference is that the 1938 hurricane seems to have been even stronger and far larger as it peaked at 140 kt in the same general area. It was definitely even larger by the time it passed E of Cape Hatteras, NC, and later struck near Bellport, NY. (Note that the reanalysis paper I posted shows a peak intensity of 115-120 kt, but this is the draft of the document; later, edited versions I have seen elsewhere still keep the current peak intensity of 140 kt.)

Given that the 1938 hurricane was moving much faster--more than 50 kt--as it made landfall on NY, was at least as large as Sandy was, and was much more intense (105 kt/941 mb vs. 70 kt/946 mb for Sandy), I think there is no question that the 1938 hurricane was much more severe than Sandy. Also, check out the first source as well as numerous other sources that give documented storm-surge values of 17-20+ feet for the 1938 hurricane, which makes sense given its larger size, faster movement, angle of approach (the funneling into Narragansett Bay and other convex bodies of water on Long Island / in SNE), and greater intensity. Sandy, with its peak surge values of about 14 feet, does not hold a candle to those of the 1938 hurricane. (Interestingly, page 52 of this great document--which includes storm-surge values from a variety of hurricanes and is a must-read--shows a storm surge of 6.3 ft near Sandy Hook, NJ, and even a measurement of 9.5 ft near the Brooklyn Bridge on the East River. These values were all taken during the 1938 hurricane.) The document shown in the previous sentence also shows a storm-surge value of 10.5 ft near Lake Como, NJ, after the 1944 hurricane--see p. 60. The same page shows numerous NJ observations above 7 ft, including 8.4 ft near Sandy Hook. I believe the 10.5-ft value is higher than anything Sandy produced in most of NJ. This source also gives values of about 8.5 ft at Atlantic City, NJ, during the non-tropical Ash Wednesday storm of 1962.

Based upon all these data, objectively, the 1938 and 1944 hurricanes seem to have been much more severe than Sandy was in NJ and the Northeast, while the 1962 system was roughly equivalent to Sandy or a bit more severe. Also, I think there is absolutely no comparison between the major storm surge that hit MS during Camille and Katrina--plus similar legendary Gulf values like those during the 1900 and 1915 hurricanes, Carla 1961, etc.--and that which hit NJ and the Northeast during Sandy. Sandy was far weaker than the Gulf storms and did not hit a shallow coastal shelf (meaning bigger waves in the case of Sandy, which may have caused much of the worst surge damage).

So while Sandy should be rightly regarded as severe--after all, events even on its scale do not happen every year--but it is far from the regional benchmark and is far from exceptional and/or unprecedented.

Were there higher surges reported in 1938 than the 15.8ft water level measured in Providence?

Also, the surge was higher in NJ than the 1944 hurricane. Sandy Hook was nearing 14 ft above MLLW before it failed. I don't think it's objective to say 1944 was worse in NJ than Sandy.

[OSUmetstud]

Also, it really doesn't make any sense from a surge perspective as to why a hurricane moving parallel to the coast, offshore, would produce a greater surge than a hurricane or post-hurricane coming out of the SE.

[OSUmetstud]

Fast movement hinders surge, it does not help. It does not allow as much water to build up on the coastline ahead of the storm. If 1938 happened again at a slower foward speed (which may be impossible given the weakening) than the surge would have been on the order of 20 ft instead of 10-15 ft.

[HurricaneJosh]

Also, it really doesn't make any sense from a surge perspective as to why a hurricane moving parallel to the coast, offshore, would produce a greater surge than a hurricane or post-hurricane coming out of the SE.

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

Fast movement hinders surge, it does not help. It does not allow as much water to build up on the coastline ahead of the storm. If 1938 happened again at a slower foward speed (which may be impossible given the weakening) than the surge would have been on the order of 20 ft instead of 10-15 ft.

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.