Hurricane Sandy - LIVE - Impacts

[famartin]

Not to mention that the toll and ratio to population is pretty low given the historical nature and impact region to begin with.

Everyone seems to have forgotten this. Or maybe doesn't understand it. But this thought has crossed my mind numerous times.

I believe the death toll from Sandy within the United States was 183 at last count (someone correct me if that's off). That's 10% of the death toll from Katrina. Meanwhile, last estimate I saw was about $65 billion in damages, which is more than 50% of the damage cost of Katrina. Considering it was an unprecedented hit on the most heavily populated part of the nation, including its biggest city, and many miles of heavily developed and extremely vulnerable coastal development, the death toll is not high at all. Every death is bad, but this was much much less of a disaster than Katrina just based on the death toll.

[Amped]

Well.. glad we can stop arguing about it.

Yes we can, but I doubt we will. It's really like Starwars geeks arguing with eachother at this point.

[MN Transplant]

Did anyone on land receive sustained 74mph winds? I know Islip and others gusted well above.

[Ian]

Everyone seems to have forgotten this. Or maybe doesn't understand it. But this thought has crossed my mind numerous times.

I believe the death toll from Sandy within the United States was 183 at last count (someone correct me if that's off). That's 10% of the death toll from Katrina. Meanwhile, last estimate I saw was about $65 billion in damages, which is more than 50% of the damage cost of Katrina. Considering it was an unprecedented hit on the most heavily populated part of the nation, including its biggest city, and many miles of heavily developed and extremely vulnerable coastal development, the death toll is not high at all. Every death is bad, but this was much much less of a disaster than Katrina just based on the death toll.

Associated Press reported 125 a few days ago tho that does sound a bit low.

There's been a lot of group think on this issue. Everyone riding the same theories, not a lot of out of the box thinking. Kind of weird actually. In some ways it seemed like more of a manhunt than a push for a better solution.. the fact that it's been led in a number of cases by groups which are openly 'anti-nws' (accu, twc) should also not be ignored.

If you put it into perspective.. not sure why mets expect to be able to remove all harm from weather. I don't think that's possible personally.

I wouldn't argue it was a good idea not to issue hurricane warnings. I'm just unsure that it was as detrimental as many want to make it out to be.

[isohume]

Yes we can, but I doubt we will. It's really like Starwars geeks arguing with eachother at this point.

True. The way these sort of threads go back and forth hashing and rehashing is nauseating.

[famartin]

Did anyone on land receive sustained 74mph winds? I know Islip and others gusted well above.

I haven't seen any reports of it, but its actually rare for a category 1 hurricane to produce any sustained category 1 winds over land, except at the very immediate coast right near the eye (or core of strongest winds, in this case, since there was no eye at landfall or even anything remotely like one).

[MN Transplant]

I haven't seen any reports of it, but its actually rare for a category 1 hurricane to produce any sustained category 1 winds over land, except at the very immediate coast right near the eye (or core of strongest winds, in this case, since there was no eye at landfall or even anything remotely like one).

Right, friction is a b**ch.

This storm was all about size and angle of attack. Do you bend established definitions because of that? I guess the NHC has decided that you do from now on.

[phlwx]

Is it possible to can Saffir-Simpson while we're at it too? It's antiquated and given our understanding of hurricanes has evolved tremendously since its creation, probably time to evolve our official ranking system to go along with it.

And, BTW, I'm glad they're including postropical in hurricane warnings going forward. I think product continuity is not a bad thing sometimes...especially in hybridcanes...but hopefully it'll be another 21 (or more) years before we get another one of these.

[Ian]

lol

UPDATE, 6:20 p.m.: The National Weather Service has issued a statement clarifying that the updated criteria for hurricane warnings is proposed not official policy. Here is the statement:

“A proposal was raised during the NOAA Hurricane Conference last week for NWS to have the option to issue hurricane and tropical storm watches and warnings for post-tropical cyclones that threaten life and property. This is one step in the process required before any proposed change to operational products becomes final. As part of our review of the 2012 hurricane season, including the Sandy service assessment, we will review all policies and changes through the existing and established process.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/national-hurricane-center-loosens-criteria-for-issuing-hurricane-warnings/2012/12/05/07f15dba-3f0d-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_blog.html

accuwx is shady.. nhc should not talk to them

[famartin]

lol

UPDATE, 6:20 p.m.: The National Weather Service has issued a statement clarifying that the updated criteria for hurricane warnings is proposed not official policy. Here is the statement:

“A proposal was raised during the NOAA Hurricane Conference last week for NWS to have the option to issue hurricane and tropical storm watches and warnings for post-tropical cyclones that threaten life and property. This is one step in the process required before any proposed change to operational products becomes final. As part of our review of the 2012 hurricane season, including the Sandy service assessment, we will review all policies and changes through the existing and established process.”

http://www.washingto...e29c5_blog.html

accuwx is shady.. nhc should not talk to them

http://www.accuweath...cess-be/2384464

I like the lead in "nearly 2 months after". Uh, last I checked, nearly 2 months would mean at least (at LEAST!) 45 days. Sandy was only 37 days ago. Hardly "almost 2 months".

[Ian]

http://www.accuweath...cess-be/2384464

I like the lead in "nearly 2 months after". Uh, last I checked, nearly 2 months would mean at least (at LEAST!) 45 days. Sandy was only 37 days ago. Hardly "almost 2 months".

I like Mike Smith a lot.. I generally try to keep him separate from the company as a whole in my thought process. BUT, I am not sure why he and they have been so widely quoted throughout this whole thing. There is a long history of Accu et al attacking NOAA/NWS. They are heavily biased.

[CT Rain]

I think it's silly that so much of this focus has been on NHC anyway... there are lots of other officials in the process.

While I thought the initial NHC decision was the wrong one I agree with this. There's a lot of blame to go around. Pinning all the blame on the NHC is just sort of silly. Complacency and lack of education were probably far more significant issues.

While I wasn't happy with the NHC I thought the local NWSFOs did an incredible job. OKX, in particular, who I worked with closely during the event should be commended.

[HurricaneJosh]

Is it possible to can Saffir-Simpson while we're at it too? It's antiquated and given our understanding of hurricanes has evolved tremendously since its creation, probably time to evolve our official ranking system to go along with it.

Totally disagree. A scale is needed-- the public needs a shorthand way of understanding storms.

Like a lot of people, you're distracted by the fact that the last few big hurricane events in the USA were large, deep, loose cyclones with abnormally low winds for the pressure.

Stepping back and looking at more than just the last few years, the scale has generally served us well. Andrew was a 5, Charley a 4, Hugo a 4, Ivan a 3, Wilma a 4 in MX and a 3 in the USA, Dean a 5 in MX, etc... All of these scale assignments make perfect sense.

With all of these and actually most hurricane events in the USA, the SS scale pretty-much sums up the threat level.

P.S. Sandy was a nor'easter, so the scale isn't even really relevant to a discussion of Sandy's impact in NJ/NY.

[Ginx snewx]

Well Josh explain IKE Sandy, and Katrina landfall SS intensity with much higher surge values than assigned by the SS scale which is not wind based solely. Impact scales are much more effective in dessiminating threat. SS needs massive overhaul and NHC agrees. Chris Landseas video interview seemed pretty definite that policy is changing as well it should. Purists are going to be upset but it's going to happen. The public, Gov and EMs need impact based warnings.

[WEATHER53]

and in the end it really is about warning people and not about debating and becoming bogged down with storm structure definition.

Its simple common sense.....and apparently it has prevailed.

A+

[HurricaneJosh]

Well Josh explain IKE Sandy, and Katrina landfall SS intensity with much higher surge values than assigned by the SS scale which is not wind based solely. Impact scales are much more effective in dessiminating threat. SS needs massive overhaul and NHC agrees. Chris Landseas video interview seemed pretty definite that policy is changing as well it should. Purists are going to be upset but it's going to happen. The public, Gov and EMs need impact based warnings.

The SS scale is a wind scale. Surge values were disassociated from it a couple of years ago.

As I've said before, people have a way of taking a few recent events and extrapolating grand, universal truth from them. I study all hurricanes hitting the USA back to 1851-- not just a couple of newsmakers from the last few years that happened to cause high surges despite relatively low winds. And when you look at the grand scheme, most big hurricane disasters in the USA have been wind events (last 40 years: Wilma, Charley, Andrew, Alicia, Celia) or combo wind/surge events (last 40 years: Rita, Ivan, Opal, Hugo, Elena, Frederic, Eloise). With all of these events, the SS scale ratings capture the impact quite well. (There have also been a couple of freshwater disasters, like Agnes, but rainfall has nothing to do with intensity.)

A few recent events have been more "pure surge" events (Katrina, Ike), but that is not a long-term norm-- it's a couple of high-profile anomalies in the last few years. But because of a couple of quirky events, people start talking about dynamiting the whole system. It seems a common issue in weather-board discussions-- that the long-term picture is always eclipsed by a couple of big recent events, which are falsely deemed to be universally representative.

This aside... Again, Sandy was not a hurricane. The SS scale isn't relevant to a discussion about a 1,000-mile-wide nor'easter. It's like applying the Enhanced Fujita scale to rate a hurricane.

[andyhb]

This aside... Again, Sandy was not a hurricane. The SS scale isn't relevant to a discussion about a 1,000-mile-wide nor'easter. It's like applying the Enhanced Fujita scale to rate a hurricane.

That seems a little exaggerated. Not trying to throw pot shots, but it's not like Sandy became a "nor'easter" or hybrid or w/e for an extended period of time before impact.

[HurricaneJosh]

That seems a little exaggerated. Not trying to throw pot shots, but it's not like Sandy became a "nor'easter" or hybrid or w/e for an extended period of time before impact.

In postanalysis, I think they're going to shows transition happening much earlier. As I said in another thread, the distinction between a nor'easter and a hurricane isn't academic-- it is real. A hurricane has a core of high winds and an eye; a nor'easter doesn't. A hurricane is more dangerous over a relatively small area near the center; on the contrary, a nor'easter can be most dangerous quite far from the center. So, expecting a hurricane scale to describe the impact of a nor'easter makes no sense. It's a silly discussion.

Sandy was an extremely severe nor'easter. It wasn't a hurricane; it wasn't an earthquake; it wasn't a tornado; it wasn't a dust storm.

[HurricaneJosh]

Well Josh explain IKE Sandy, and Katrina landfall SS intensity with much higher surge values than assigned by the SS scale which is not wind based solely. Impact scales are much more effective in dessiminating threat. SS needs massive overhaul and NHC agrees. Chris Landseas video interview seemed pretty definite that policy is changing as well it should. Purists are going to be upset but it's going to happen. The public, Gov and EMs need impact based warnings.

P.S. Please give me a link to the interview where Chris Landsea says the SS scale needs to be overhauled.

[andyhb]

Sandy was an extremely severe nor'easter. It wasn't a hurricane; it wasn't an earthquake; it wasn't a tornado; it wasn't a dust storm.

I don't need to be condescended upon to understand your point.

Forgive me if I'm taking it the wrong way, but that is what I'm taking away from that.

[HurricaneJosh]

I don't need to be condescended upon to understand your point.

Not condescending. Try to make the point that a nor'easter and a hurricane are two really different things. People here are acting like they're basically the same thing, and the NHC was stuck on some weird little academic distinction that has no impact on sensible weather.

[famartin]

In postanalysis, I think they're going to shows transition happening much earlier.

What do you mean by "much earlier"? It still appeared to have an eye as late as midday Monday the 29th. Although it certainly had some hybrid characteristics at that point, the core was still obviously warm.

[HurricaneJosh]

What do you mean by "much earlier"? It still appeared to have an eye as late as midday Monday the 29th. Although it certainly had some hybrid characteristics at that point, the core was still obviously warm.

I don't think they're going to show it as a hurricane up until an hour before landfall. As you know, the warm core is only part of the criteria. If that were the only one, it would be called a hurricane at landfall, since it clearly was warm core as it crossed the coast-- you could see it on IR imagery.

[andyhb]

Not condescending. Try to make the point that a nor'easter and a hurricane are two really different things. People here are acting like they're basically the same thing, and the NHC was stuck on some weird little academic distinction that has no impact on sensible weather.

I don't really think people here think that, but the overall thing I'm getting is that a hurricane transitioning to a hybrid nor'easter-like system still retains enough tropical characteristics to be classified on the SS Scale for the benefit of public information.

[HurricaneJosh]

I don't really think people here think that, but the overall thing I'm getting is that a hurricane transitioning to a hybrid nor'easter-like system still retains enough tropical characteristics to be classified on the SS Scale for the benefit of public information.

But I'm not sure I agree with that. With a real hurricane, the exact path of the center really matters-- it can make a difference down to a few miles. With a nor'easter, your distance from the center isn't really as relevant-- you could be hundreds of miles away and still have devastating effects-- as we saw with Sandy.

With the 1938 hurricane, the most severe effects were confined relatively close to the center. While NY, CT, and RI had Cat-3 conditions, MA did not, because coastal MA was too far E. (This is as per reanalysis.) If Sandy had taken the 1938 track, MA would have had as bad conditions as NY, CT, and RI-- maybe even worse-- because the structure was entirely different than 1938 and the energy was spread over a wider area.

[famartin]

I don't think they're going to show it as a hurricane up until an hour before landfall.

They stated as much in the 5PM advisory, that they didn't think it was tropical any longer at that point, which I agree with. But I think it was still tropical before, say, 18Z.

[famartin]

But I'm not sure I agree with that. With a real hurricane, the exact path of the center really matters-- it can make a difference down to a few miles. With a nor'easter, your distance from the center isn't really as relevant-- you could be hundreds of miles away and still have devastating effects-- as we saw with Sandy.

With the 1938 hurricane, the most severe effects were confined relatively close to the center. While NY, CT, and RI had Cat-3 conditions, MA did not, because coastal MA was too far E. (This is as per reanalysis.) If Sandy had taken the 1938 track, MA would have had as bad conditions as NY, CT, and RI-- maybe even worse-- because the structure was entirely different than 1938 and the energy was spread over a wider area.

The track mattered somewhat with Sandy... certainly, it still had enough hurricane characteristics such that the strongest wind was right of the track and heaviest rain was left. The left-hook track really helped make Sandy what it was. A lot of people in NJ heard "hurricane" and expected the typical conditions which are actually dependent on track; i.e., a track up the coast which puts most of NJ on the rain side. Instead, most of NJ was on the wind side. Delaware got deluged; NJ got blown away.

That being said, yes, certainly the very large distance between the core of highest winds which went over Long Island, NYC and northern NJ were very far from the center and certainly not really a tropical feature.

[HurricaneJosh]

They stated as much in the 5PM advisory, that they didn't think it was tropical any longer at that point, which I agree with. But I think it was still tropical before, say, 18Z.

It will be interesting to see what they decide. I'm very curious to read the postanalysis on it, as I think there's going to be a lot of debate around the transition. At the end of the day, simple, neat categories like "tropical" and "post-tropical" can't totally do justice to the organic, messy process that occurred.

One thing I will say: this wind swath from HRD actually looks remarkably tropical, with the highest winds focused near the center:

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/hwind/Operational/2012/AL182012/AL182012_swath_max1minWind_knots.pdf

But I'm puzzled by this analysis, as it doesn't seem to reflect what was observed on the ground. For example, according to this, Atlantic City (near the landfall point), should have had sustained winds between 55 and 65 kt. Did they? Also, what wind reports on the ground in S NJ justified that swath of 55-kt winds, whereas Long Island-- which had an official 78-kt gust at ISP-- only shows 50 kt.

[HurricaneJosh]

The track mattered somewhat with Sandy... certainly, it still had enough hurricane characteristics such that the strongest wind was right of the track and heaviest rain was left. The left-hook track really helped make Sandy what it was. A lot of people in NJ heard "hurricane" and expected the typical conditions which are actually dependent on track; i.e., a track up the coast which puts most of NJ on the rain side. Instead, most of NJ was on the wind side. Delaware got deluged; NJ got blown away.

That being said, yes, certainly the very large distance between the core of highest winds which went over Long Island, NYC and northern NJ were very far from the center and certainly not really a tropical feature.

I agree with most of this post, and to clarify: yeah, the exact track of Sandy mattered, in the sense that it mattered whether you were right or left of it. I should have more explicitly said that your distance from the center didn't matter as much as it would with a real hurricane, where that is really a critical factor in terms of what you experience.

[famartin]

It will be interesting to see what they decide. I'm very curious to read the postanalysis on it, as I think there's going to be a lot of debate around the transition. At the end of the day, simple, neat categories like "tropical" and "post-tropical" can't totally do justice to the organic, messy process that occurred.

One thing I will say: this wind swath from HRD actually looks remarkably tropical, with the highest winds focused near the center:

ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/hwind/Operational/2012/AL182012/AL182012_swath_max1minWind_knots.pdf

But I'm puzzled by this analysis, as it doesn't seem to reflect what was observed on the ground. For example, according to this, Atlantic City (near the landfall point), should have had sustained winds between 55 and 65 kt. Did they? Also, what wind reports on the ground in S NJ justified that swath of 55-kt winds, whereas Long Island-- which had an official 78-kt gust at ISP-- only shows 50 kt.

That doesn't strike me as being particularly accurate, either. Peak sustained wind at ACY was 51 mph... 44 knots. The map is definitely in error there. Peak at PHL was 44 mph or 38 knots, again the map is in error. It gets worse in Delaware, where the map shows peak sustained of 40 knots but GED only reported 24 knots. Further north, peak sustained at EWR was 52 mph, 45 knots, so the map is closer to being accurate there. Also at JFK, peak sustained was 56 mph, 49 knots, so the map looks about right there as well. Same thing at ISP so the map is also about right there, maybe even a bit too high. So its about right around NYC metro, but definitely too high down in NJ.