CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 What's the 12.65? I thought Stamford was 11.22'? That looks like Kings Point, NY Stamford was 11 something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 What's the 12.65? I thought Stamford was 11.22'? I do not know where they got those numbers from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 the USGS numbers from the temporary gauges they put up on Staten Island are incredible, some 13- 16 footers in there. Surprised NOAA did not reference them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ginx... that's storm tide - not surge from the NOAA stations. The LWX graphic was surge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ryan what time was high tide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 the USGS numbers from the temporary gauges they put up on Staten Island are incredible, some 13- 16 footers in there. Surprised NOAA did not reference them. Well they don't directly measure surge. Only know surge if you know what the astronomical tide (above/below a certain datum) would be and when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ginx... that's storm tide - not surge from the NOAA stations. The LWX graphic was surge. So the Stamford surge was not 11 feet? I am confused a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ryan what time was high tide? In Stamford/New Haven I believe it was 11 p.m. The graph from Stamford was great... really tells the story http://ryanhanrahan.com/2012/11/01/sandy-sets-records-and-reshapes-coast/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Well they don't directly measure surge. Only know surge if you know what the astronomical tide (above/below a certain datum) would be and when. Ah got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 So the Stamford surge was not 11 feet? I am confused a bit Stamford surge was 11.24 feet and their peak tide was 11 feet. Had 11 feet of surge occurred at high tide their peak storm tide would have been like 17 feet or something ungodly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Stamford surge was 11.24 feet and their peak tide was 11 feet. Had 11 feet of surge occurred at high tide their peak storm tide would have been like 17 feet or something ungodly. yea I see what you mean know. unfortunately looks like there are no tide level stations on SI so the surge true value will not be known. I did speak to a contractor today who is rebuilding a Chiller plant on SI and said the water line was 17 feet in the building, amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 That looks like Kings Point, NY Stamford was 11 something Oh right, I forgot about that place. Man that is nuts though...Imagine of it did happen at high tide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'll have to look at what the highest BOS harbor surge is. It's obviously not that high considering it's not prone to surges from the east, but the big Feb retro gale of 2010 gave the buoy the biggest surge...bigger than Bliz of '78 I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 why is there no data from sandy hook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 yea I see what you mean know. unfortunately looks like there are no tide level stations on SI so the surge true value will not be known. I did speak to a contractor today who is rebuilding a Chiller plant on SI and said the water line was 17 feet in the building, amazing. They are able to figure it out though. So the USGS can give you the data eventually... I'm not sure if they have it posted online. I know after Irene they gave me a list of all the tide data with surge included based on predicted astro tide. The folks at USGS in East Hartford are awesome. Very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 why is there no data from sandy hook? Didn't the gauge malfunction prior to peak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Didn't the gauge malfunction prior to peak? nevermind, i forgot about that and also just noticed the date of that image. mt holly said to expect a higher surge than that after final analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'll have to look at what the highest BOS harbor surge is. It's obviously not that high considering it's not prone to surges from the east, but the big Feb retro gale of 2010 gave the buoy the biggest surge...bigger than Bliz of '78 I believe. It's amazing how much wind direction and wave height/period plays a big role in dmaage potential too. More than just tide level. Unfortunately this isn't something that is particularly easy to quantify in LIS but I want to spend some time working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 It's amazing how much wind direction and wave height/period plays a big role in dmaage potential too. More than just tide level. Unfortunately this isn't something that is particularly easy to quantify in LIS but I want to spend some time working on it. Take a house on the water for example. Say the surge from the ocean comes 2' up the house. Yes there will be wave action battering the house, but friction from shallow water depth will chew up the wave height. But, throw in water that comes up 8'. While I don't have the data...I would think there is some sort of a logarithmic or exponential relationship to these wave heights. 25' breakers certainly won't get chewed up by 8' water depth like that would with a 2' water depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N. OF PIKE Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Take a house on the water for example. Say the surge from the ocean comes 2' up the house. Yes there will be wave action battering the house, but friction from shallow water depth will chew up the wave height. But, throw in water that comes up 8'. While I don't have the data...I would think there is some sort of a logarithmic or exponential relationship to these wave heights. 25' breakers certainly won't get chewed up by 8' water depth like that would with a 2' water depth. well there is a formula to calculate at what water height a wave of x feet will break. a wave breaks in water approx 1.3 times it's height. so a 20 foot wave breaks in about 25 feet of water (26ft) . if the wave is traveling over a gradually decreasing ocean bottom then the wave will break a bit more crumbly , if it travels from say 50 feet water and then encounters a more sharp decrease in the angle of the bottom, by a reef, the wave will tend to 'peel' so i think , using your example above when the water level rises around a structure the potential wave heights impacting that structure (assuming there is a storm , and a open enough ocean that is not impeding incoming swells) definitely increases with the water level. 2 feet of water could sustain 1.5 feet breaking waves while 8 feet can sustain 6 feet breaking waves, roughly. also somewhat related to ryan's point, swell period definitely effects the height (potential) of a breaking wave at the shore. a 6 foot swell with a period of 10 seconds not only (has less potential to travel great distances without decaying) and also will only produce a wave of say 8 feet. while a 6 foot swell with a period of 16 seconds (holds more of it's energy below the ocean) which also limits the decay (over hundreds and hundreds of miles traveled) but also the added energy below the surface helps to produce a expontentially large break wave at the beach (then it's swell height in the open ocean). a 6 foot swell with a period of 16 seconds can produce a breaking wave of 15 feet....so the greater the period in a swell the more energy below the surface which gets propogated upward as the wave reaches shallower water, "feels the bottom" slows down and builds in height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 This is a fantastic article about the warning no warning controversy. http://digitalmeteorologist.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/assessing-sandy-warnings-and-the-weather-enterprise/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Pickles http://www.surfermag.com/photos/hurricane-sandy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Huge announcement from NHC today with an admission that they did not handle Sandy correctly wrt warnings. Check out new article on accuwx website. I'm shocked at how quickly the policy change and admission of error occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Huge announcement from NHC today with an admission that they did not handle Sandy correctly wrt warnings. Check out new article on accuwx website. I'm shocked at how quickly the policy change and admission of error occurred. Indeed. I'm still mad there were no hurricane warnings. At least they admit it, though. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/breaking-nhc-modifies-hurrican/2379553 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Indeed. I'm still mad there were no hurricane warnings. At least they admit it, though. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/breaking-nhc-modifies-hurrican/2379553 I'm guessing they know what will come out from either the SA or FOIA requests would be pretty ugly. Already we are seeing bloomberg's people throw Nws under the bus (unwarranted) and NJ Transit doing it too (unwarranted as well). Still I'm guessing they're trying to get in front of the story as it evolves saying they've already taken corrective action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm guessing they know what will come out from either the SA or FOIA requests would be pretty ugly. Already we are seeing bloomberg's people throw Nws under the bus (unwarranted) and NJ Transit doing it too (unwarranted as well). Still I'm guessing they're trying to get in front of the story as it evolves saying they've already taken corrective action. links? did anyone find out who gave Bloomberg that Sat presser info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorEaster27 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Huge announcement from NHC today with an admission that they did not handle Sandy correctly wrt warnings. Check out new article on accuwx website. I'm shocked at how quickly the policy change and admission of error occurred. Now it's time for the insurance companies to admit they are wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I'm guessing they know what will come out from either the SA or FOIA requests would be pretty ugly. Already we are seeing bloomberg's people throw Nws under the bus (unwarranted) and NJ Transit doing it too (unwarranted as well). Still I'm guessing they're trying to get in front of the story as it evolves saying they've already taken corrective action. I still think the biggest issue is not whether tropical headlines should or shouldn't have been in effect (for the record I think they should have been), but rather how the NWS communicates the threat. Clearly, we are not as effective as we think in communicating the non-tropical threat to the Northeast public. Now I think they've corrected too far in the other direction. Carrying tropical headlines well past any real tropical threat could be counterproductive to getting the public to react (cry wolf syndrome). Hopefully, it is reserved for the "post-tropical" hybrids, such as Sandy. I think rather than fixing the issue at hand (communication, reaction, preparedness, etc.) we are really just covering our asses because of one event. I don't see what's wrong with saying our forecast was great, our communication was ultimately lacking what it could have been, and moving forward from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.