September weather discussion

[Ginx snewx]

Ginxy poo, where did you see fourth

Highest surge? I wanted to Compare that to 12/26/10 and 2/25/10.

Serious coastal flooding hits Massachusetts

The high winds from the storm drove a damaging storm surge into the coast of Eastern Massachusetts Friday night and Saturday morning. Hardest hit was the coast of Cape Cod Bay southeast of Boston, where major flooding forced residents of low-lying areas to evacuate. A storm surge in excess of four feet inundated roads, damaged coastal buildings, and caused severe beach erosion. Officially, the surge peaked at 4.21' in Boston early Saturday morning. Unofficially, this is fourth greatest storm surge measured in Boston since record keeping began in 1921. Fortunately, the surge hit as low tide was approaching, and the "storm tide"--how how the water gets above the high tide mark, due to the combination of the storm surge and the tide--only reached 2.86' above high tide (MHHW, Mean Higher High Water) in Boston. Nemo's storm tide did not make the top-ten list of high water levels in Boston. 

Top unofficial top-five storm surge (not storm tide) events in Boston's history, given as height above normal tide:

4.88' on October 30, 1991 during the "Perfect Storm" Halloween Nor'easter

4.57' on October 29, 2012 during Hurricane Sandy

4.34' on February 6, 1978, during the Blizzard of 1978

4.21' on February 9, 2013, during Winter Storm Nemo

3.69' on February 14, 1940, during the Valentine's Day Nor'easter of 1940

Read more at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/snow-measured-in-feet-not-inches-historic-noreaster-pounds-new-engl#4p1zvfpT3EEaVg0e.99

[weathafella]

I see no reason to wear shorts and tee shirt for an 50 degree evening walk. Only white guys who don't care about their skin do that.Lol what? White guys that don't care about their skin? How is wearing shorts in 50 degree wx going to affect someone's skin? Do you cover your face with a veil?

Yes

[CoastalWx]

I thought the late Feb 2010 storm would be there. I swear that was a top 5 surge, BOS harbor had a double high tide. I'm about to hit the hay so I'll look later, but that was my assumption.

[Ginx snewx]

view any date here Scott

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=19911030&edate=19911031&wl_sensor_hist=W2&relative=&datum=4&unit=1&shift=s&stn=8443970+Boston%2C+MA&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format=View+Data

[CoastalWx]

view any date here Scott

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=19911030&edate=19911031&wl_sensor_hist=W2&relative=&datum=4&unit=1&shift=s&stn=8443970+Boston%2C+MA&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format=View+Data

Thanks, will look tomorrow.

[Typhoon Tip]

So was Feb 1978...

 

 

Dec 1992 didn't even register on the NESIS scale, yet it was one of the most disruptive storms for interior SNE elevations...and massive coastal flooding. NESIS is just one measure. It says nothing about how disruptive the storm was in SNE....it only judges the storm as a whole for the Northeast.

 

 

That's exactly why I said it, Will, because it was not pervasive enough.    But I wasn't aware that 1978 was only a 3 -- interesting. I thought that wrapped snow back to DC?   But, 1978 had other things going for it, as well.  The stall, and the 3 consecutive hammer tides.  That storm transcends...    

 

Timing was a factor on that storm too, btw folks.  It hit on a Monday at noon -- just about perfectly wrong. 

[HoarfrostHubb]

I forgot that Feb 2013 was #3 at ORH all time

[Typhoon Tip]

Also -- I recall reading somewhere that mean storm tides have been rising all over the planet.  Not sure how much of that should be a factor in the discussion but we should keep in mind that breaking storm surge records might not be as difficult to to as 50 or 100 years ago.   We know that ocean levels have risen between 6 and 11", depending on water temperature zones.  It may seem minor, but during wave action pile up it may account for something.   A half a foot of water up over a seawall with big wave action is a giant problem.

[Ginx snewx]

Also -- I recall reading somewhere that mean storm tides have been rising all over the planet.  Not sure how much of that should be a factor in the discussion but we should keep in mind that breaking storm surge records might not be as difficult to to as 50 or 100 years ago.   We know that ocean levels have risen between 6 and 11", depending on water temperature zones.  It may seem minor, but during wave action pile up it may account for something.   A half a foot of water up over a seawall with big wave action is a giant problem.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) operates a series of sea-level gauges in coastal waters around the country.  The station in Boston Harbor is located in the Fort Point Channel.  With records going back to 1920, NOAA data indicate that, over the past century, the relative sea level has risen about 10 inches.  Scientists estimate that about half of this is from rise in the absolute sea level, and half from land subsidence.

 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=ma

[Ginx snewx]

Also -- I recall reading somewhere that mean storm tides have been rising all over the planet.  Not sure how much of that should be a factor in the discussion but we should keep in mind that breaking storm surge records might not be as difficult to to as 50 or 100 years ago.   We know that ocean levels have risen between 6 and 11", depending on water temperature zones.  It may seem minor, but during wave action pile up it may account for something.   A half a foot of water up over a seawall with big wave action is a giant problem.

surge is above predicted tide though so the water level rise is already figured in predicted tide

[Ginx snewx]

this will tell you how much land has sunk and how much is due to sea level rise for lots of spots around the globe

 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Technical_Report_NOS_CO-OPS_065.pdf

[Typhoon Tip]

surge is above predicted tide though so the water level rise is already figured in predicted tide

 

I'm not talking about predictions .. though one would think any prediction effort would atone for it, sure.   I'm talking about observed results.  The same storm intensity 100 year ago, would not produce the same storm surge as now, as far as impact.  

[Ginx snewx]

I'm not talking about predictions .. though one would think any prediction effort would atone for it, sure.   I'm talking about observed results.  The same storm intensity 100 year ago, would not produce the same storm surge as now, as far as impact.  

you said

 

but we should keep in mind that breaking storm surge records might not be as difficult to to as 50 or 100 years ago. 

 

 

yea well with a 5 inch subsidence and a 5 inch rise water is ten inches higher on land so the surge is ten inches higher now than in 1920 impact wise but posted data would produce the same surge values.

[Typhoon Tip]

you said

 

but we should keep in mind that breaking storm surge records might not be as difficult to to as 50 or 100 years ago. 

 

 

yea well with a 5 inch subsidence and a 5 inch rise water is ten inches higher on land so the surge is ten inches higher now than in 1920 impact wise but posted data would produce the same surge values.

 

I think what this really means is, "above sea-level."   I don't argue that it produced an absolute value of 4 and change.  I am only saying that impact-wise, it is greater now.  So using that to say this last Feb storm is this or that, isn't quite fair, because the same storm even 50 years ago would not have meant as much wrt to impact.  

 

It's a minor point.  

[ORH_wxman]

surge is above predicted tide though so the water level rise is already figured in predicted tide

 

 

Correct, the sea level rise is irrelevant when measuring the actual storm tide since the storm tides are measured relative to the current tides. owever, obviously the SLR makes a smaller storm tide more impactful over time.

[ORH_wxman]

That's exactly why I said it, Will, because it was not pervasive enough.    But I wasn't aware that 1978 was only a 3 -- interesting. I thought that wrapped snow back to DC?   But, 1978 had other things going for it, as well.  The stall, and the 3 consecutive hammer tides.  That storm transcends...    

 

Timing was a factor on that storm too, btw folks.  It hit on a Monday at noon -- just about perfectly wrong. 

 

 

 

January 2005 was a higher nesis than Feb 1978...nesis is not the way to measure a storm locally. ITs a way to measure the storm for a larger region.

[ORH_wxman]

I forgot that Feb 2013 was #3 at ORH all time

 

 

Only behind December 1992 and April 1997. Feb 2013 had the best sustained pure blizzard conditions I've ever seen here...however the wet snow of Dec 1992 and April 1997 were higher impact.

[powderfreak]

You know the weather is slow when we spend a couple days talking about the impact of winter storms come and gone.

[Typhoon Tip]

January 2005 was a higher nesis than Feb 1978...nesis is not the way to measure a storm locally. ITs a way to measure the storm for a larger region.

 

Than what's the point.  Logically ...there is none if we remove NESDIS, because without the snow that storm really was only impressive for one tide cycle.

 

I think this backs us into my point, local storms that don't include more than one geographical region become more like local events, and don't really fit into the hypothetical event-budget.  

 

This isn't complicated and I don't understand what this wanton contrarian thing is going on.  That storm was a big event here and only here, and isn't representative or worthy of the larger pantheon of players in the record books.   

 

It was a great event, just here. I've said it over and over and over, but folks are confusing that with the ilk of Katrina, Sandy, 1978. They are of a different echelon of event, to which Feb falls short.  

 

All this started because I dared impart the gesture that there seems to be an event frequency, where every so many units of time we should expect something big to transpire.  I won't argue that Feb was big, but just imo big has to be farther reaching.   

 

Can you imagine if Feb, 2013 stalled -- we'd be up to here in an entirely different discussion. 

[ORH_wxman]

Than what's the point.  Logically ...there is none if we remove NESDIS, because without the snow that storm really was only impressive for one tide cycle.

 

I think this backs us into my point, local storms that don't include more than one geographical region become more like local events, and don't really fit into the hypothetical event-budget.  

 

This isn't complicated and I don't understand what this wanton contrarian thing is going on.  That storm was big event here and only here, and isn't representative or worthy of the larger pantheon of players in the record books.   

 

It was a great event, just here. I've said it over and over and over, but folks are confusing that with the ilk of Katrina, Sandy, 1978. They are of a different echelon of event, to which Feb falls short.  

 

All this started because I dared impart the gesture that there seems to be an event frequency, where every so many units of time we should expect something big to transpire.  I won't argue that Feb was big, but just imo big has to be farther reaching.   

 

Can you imagine if Feb, 2013 stalled -- we'd be up to here in an entirely different discussion. 

 

 

1978 really wasn't a historical storm outside of LI and the southeast 2/3rds of SNE...it was pretty local, albeit monstrous for the area it hit.

 

A storm like March 1993 absolutely blows 1978 out of the water in terms of larger scale impact...its just that 1978 was a bigger deal in SNE so its the measuring stick for all winter storms amongst our population.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

January 2005 was a higher nesis than Feb 1978...nesis is not the way to measure a storm locally. ITs a way to measure the storm for a larger region.

In Jan. 2005 storm the areas just W. of downtown Boston (Cambridge, Somerville) got hit by amazing, persistent bands of prodigious snowfall rates. The hardest I've ever seen it snow, including April 97. I measured 30"+ in many places around Inman Sq.

Fierce winds too.

An overlooked storm by many.

[Ginx snewx]

1978 really wasn't a historical storm outside of LI and the southeast 2/3rds of SNE...it was pretty local, albeit monstrous for the area it hit.

A storm like March 1993 absolutely blows 1978 out of the water in terms of larger scale impact...its just that 1978 was a bigger deal in SNE so its the measuring stick for all winter storms amongst our population.

exactly and I tried hard to understand what he was getting at. Bottom line is original premise that we have been quiet since Sandy is not true in a local SNE sense. In fact Sandy only really affected SRI and SCT badly for the rest of us Feb 13 was worse

[ORH_wxman]

In Jan. 2005 storm the areas just W. of downtown Boston (Cambridge, Somerville) got hit by amazing, persistent bands of prodigious snowfall rates. The hardest I've ever seen it snow, including April 97. I measured 30"+ in many places around Inman Sq.

Fierce winds too.

An overlooked storm by many.

 

 

Bulk of it fell overnight Saturday night into Sunday morning...another lucky break on the timing of that one.

[powderfreak]

Than what's the point. Logically ...there is none if we remove NESDIS, because without the snow that storm really was only impressive for one tide cycle.

I think this backs us into my point, local storms that don't include more than one geographical region become more like local events, and don't really fit into the hypothetical event-budget.

This isn't complicated and I don't understand what this wanton contrarian thing is going on. That storm was a big event here and only here, and isn't representative or worthy of the larger pantheon of players in the record books.

It was a great event, just here. I've said it over and over and over, but folks are confusing that with the ilk of Katrina, Sandy, 1978. They are of a different echelon of event, to which Feb falls short.

All this started because I dared impart the gesture that there seems to be an event frequency, where every so many units of time we should expect something big to transpire. I won't argue that Feb was big, but just imo big has to be farther reaching.

Can you imagine if Feb, 2013 stalled -- we'd be up to here in an entirely different discussion.

What about using minimum low pressure achieved or something other than subjective reasoning to compare the storms?

But it seems we are also talking about impact which doesn't really count in the "event budget"...ie it seems the big storms mentioned hit huge population centers. Sandy hits the Carolinas and not the northeast population centers, we probably wouldn't talk about it as much. Katrina would be devastating anywhere, but probably wouldn't hold the same weight if it didn't hit New Orleans.

An "event budget" or "these types of storms only come around once every X-years" should probably include similar storms that were either near misses or hit unpopulated areas (but were still a beast of a storm)...if we are truly just comparing storm strength, there are probably other events of that ilk as well...we just don't talk about them because of the lack of impact on population centers.

[TalcottWx]

Ha ha!   That's an awesome picture... 

 

I like this map someone threw up on Wiki:

 

Yeah, no big deal 

 

[ORH_wxman]

What about using minimum low pressure achieved or something other than subjective reasoning to compare the storms?

But it seems we are also talking about impact which doesn't really count in the "event budget"...ie it seems the big storms mentioned hit huge population centers. Sandy hits the Carolinas and not the northeast population centers, we probably wouldn't talk about it as much. Katrina would be devastating anywhere, but probably wouldn't hold the same weight if it didn't hit New Orleans.

An "event budget" or "these types of storms only come around once every X-years" should probably include similar storms that were either near misses or hit unpopulated areas (but were still a beast of a storm)...if we are truly just comparing storm strength, there are probably other events of that ilk as well...we just don't talk about them because of the lack of impact on population centers.

 

 

There's a lot of subjectivity to it. Boxing Day was one of th emost impressive storms meteorologically speaking we've had in the past 5 years, yet we had dozens of posters melting down in the middle of it because their backyards were getting dryslotted. I think ORH had like 9 straight hours gusting over 40 knots in that storm including a peak gust near 60 knots.

[Typhoon Tip]

1978 really wasn't a historical storm outside of LI and the southeast 2/3rds of SNE...it was pretty local, albeit monstrous for the area it hit.

 

A storm like March 1993 absolutely blows 1978 out of the water in terms of larger scale impact...its just that 1978 was a bigger deal in SNE so its the measuring stick for all winter storms amongst our population.

 

Yeah, I couldn't agree more with this point (bold).  

 

When I first postulate the event budget idea, I was really thinking more along the lines of disruption.  To be fair, ...yeah, I have to concede the February 2013 should make that list, but near the bottom.  Other events were simply more in that regard.   

 

It seems we have a shot every year these times of getting a Feb 2013 -like system.  You could say so for 1978, but scientifically, that thing had so many uniquely ideal physics going in that it sets it apart.

 

All that said, Feb to Sep and most like the first half of Oct is working on 8 months of relative quiescent times.   Something should break this... If there were such a frequency of bigger events study ever done, I wonder where 8 months of piddle would rest.  Probably normal, ironically.

 

1993 was a truly transcended epic.  It was a super-position of waves on a hemispheric scale.  Kind of like rouge wave analogy.   

[TalcottWx]

I see no reason to wear shorts and tee shirt for an 50 degree evening walk. Only white guys who don't care about their skin do that.

50 degree weather when you aren't walking to your truck in the driveway for 30 seconds can be chilly, I'm with you

[Typhoon Tip]

exactly and I tried hard to understand what he was getting at. Bottom line is original premise that we have been quiet since Sandy is not true in a local SNE sense. In fact Sandy only really affected SRI and SCT badly for the rest of us Feb 13 was worse

 

Steve, why does it always have to be about "right here"?   meaning SNE??   SNE is a meso-beta scaled region.  It's IMBY to think of the atmosphere in that way.  I was talking (premise) about an ilk of event that last Feb doesn't fit into -- it just doesn't.  But I did just give a nod to Will in terms of disruptions to us.  I don't like that though.  

[ORH_wxman]

Yeah, I couldn't agree more with this point (bold).  

 

When I first postulate the event budget idea, I was really thinking more along the lines of disruption.  To be fair, ...yeah, I have to concede the February 2013 should make that list, but near the bottom.  Other events were simply more in that regard.   

 

It seems we have a shot every year these times of getting a Feb 2013 -like system.  You could say so for 1978, but scientifically, that thing had so many uniquely ideal physics going in that it sets it apart.

 

All that said, Feb to Sep and most like the first half of Oct is working on 8 months of relative quiescent times.   Something should break this... If there were such a frequency of bigger events study ever done, I wonder where 8 months of piddle would rest.  Probably normal, ironically.

 

1993 was a truly transcended epic.  It was a super-position of waves on a hemispheric scale.  Kind of like rouge wave analogy.   

 

 

You'll get no argument from me that its been boring since the end of last winter...this year's convective season was a massive bust...even for SNE standards, and TC season has been non-existent for the most part. I don't mind...it sometimes makes me feel we are "due" once winter comes along, even though I doesn't have to work that way.