Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Quoting ncstorm:


500,000 people are still without power and gas is being rationed out..dire situation up there..those cities outside NY are falling off the radar unfortunately..

no i dont think they are forgotten, its a regional thing, if you read the newspapers from up there you will see all the stories etc..life does go on im afraid and people move on, we all know what happened up there, i have people in my family suffering up there myself and im guessing so do other posters here, so no one is forgetting them but again..its a regional thing, if tampa got hit by sandy..in 2 weeks new york would be talking about something else other than tampa..i scanned the news up there earlier this morning, lots of pics and stories up there still..people are suffering, many thousands and all we can do is watch and read and donate to charities etc..and life elsewhere..goes on..when wilma hit florida..how many days did other regions newspapers keep on reporting about it?..not many..its just the way it is im afraid..

well its supposed to warm up some today..maybe 75 here, waiting for the winds to change direction............

We've been over this several times, haven't we?

I have stated--and will continue to say--that no one can say, "Sandy was caused by global warming." But by the same token, no one can say, "Sandy was not made worse by global warming." The steroids analogy used by some climatologists (which is so easy to understand, I'm not sure how people are still confused): Mark McGwire, who has admitted to using steroids, hit 70 home runs in 1998 (a record at that time). No person can look at any one of those 70 home runs and say, "Yes, that one was definitely caused by steroids." But that fact doesn't mean none of those home runs were made possible by McGwire's use of steroids. The thing is, McGwire had a great swing and a good eye, so he may very well have hit a large number of homers that year had he not been juiced--but he almost certainly wouldn't have hit so many, and the ones he hit almost certainly wouldn't have gone so far.

steroid analogy? You really need to stay off JB's twitter..

Quoting Neapolitan:
Looking at that list, I count 4 pre-August storms, 14 August storms, 21 September storms, 9 storms that occurred in the first half of October, and just four that took place in the second half of October.

Of those latter four, NYC was affected by:

--The Great Storm of 1693, which made landfall in Virginia;
--The rains and wind of a minimal tropical storm that had been over land since making landfall in North Carolina (1872);
--The rains of another that made landfall in Virginia (1878);
--The "light rains" from Isbell (1964) as it passed offshore to the east.

Assuming the limited anecdotal evidence is correct, then, the only one of those four that could possibly compare to Sandy in terms of ferocity was "The Great Storm of 1693", which few were around to witness or document. But even then, the storm didn't make landfall from the east, but came up from the southwest, meaning it couldn't possibly have been as intense as Sandy was.

Hurricane Sandy, on the other hand, was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record; the most powerful storm ever to strike the New Jersey coast; the second costliest U.S. storm ever; the second deadliest U.S. storm in 40 years, and on and on and on. So comparing it to other previous storms is sort of pointless and disingenuous. The fact is, there hasn't been a storm so large or intense to affect the NYC area so late in the year for at least 400 years--and possibly much longer than that.

I wonder why that is...

You can't use one system to argue that its climate change....i mean you just bashed using anecdotal evidence a few minutes ago..
Second deadliest etc is the fault of population growth and expansion into dangerous areas, these same areas were vulnerable to a storm like this for hundreds of years and we never got lucky (or unlucky) enough for the timing to line up. This is something that easily couldve happened before and just never did in the short history we have...and for a while it probably wont happen again. I mean heck if this storm surge had peaked at low tide, it passes into history as one of the small billion dollar disasters, gone and forgotten after the much more minor coastline surge damage is repaired.

new GFS at 78 hours......................

Quoting biff4ugo:
Storm diameter is 1,040 miles or a circular area of 0.849 million miles... or 23.668 trillion square feet.

Just estimating one gallon per surface square foot, at an increased temperature of 0.3 F due to global warming of ocean temperatures (tropical Atlantic increase over 60 year average) would be the equivalent of 7.1 trillion gallons up 1 degree... is 7.1 trillion BTUs of additional thermal energy in the top few inches of the ocean under hurricane Sandy. or 2.79 Billion extra horse power.
How is my math?

Do you think 2.79 billion horse power pushing wind or waves or rain could cause additional damage? That isn't even the top foot of ocean under Sandy.

So we can't talk about an individual storm, but we can talk about ocean temperature change, and available additional energy. And storm size can be talked about.
hummm.


edit>7.1 trillion btu's in perspective is 1,789 kton or a 10th of an atomic bomb's worth of additional energy in the top few inches of the ocean.

Good post. It shows the shear power of ocean heat be transferred into the atmospheric monstahs...:)

LOL, Neo. You do see in black and white, don't you? And I'm not talking about the color of anyone's Prius.

I popped in to remind you and your pals Esther and Karen that there are some who recognize the overall trend toward global warming has been happening for at least 15,000 years now - in North America anyway. In other words, we/they are not "deniers." At the same time, you will not convince us/them Sandy was worsened by "AGW" during this episode of As the Earth Turns. No reason to think so.

Baseball and steroids, bad analogy. You're talking humans. I'm talking natural processes.

(Add: response to 449. Neapolitan 3:38 PM GMT on November 09, 2012)

I have a question with TWC and naming winter storms. Does anyone know how many names we can expect in a year. I have no clue if its 10 or 30. Thx

Quoting atris:



Quoting Neapolitan:
Looking at that list, I count 4 pre-August storms, 14 August storms, 21 September storms, 9 storms that occurred in the first half of October, and just four that took place in the second half of October.

Of those latter four, NYC was affected by:

--The Great Storm of 1693, which made landfall in Virginia;
--The rains and wind of a minimal tropical storm that had been over land since making landfall in North Carolina (1872);
--The rains of another that made landfall in Virginia (1878);
--The "light rains" from Isbell (1964) as it passed offshore to the east.

Assuming the limited anecdotal evidence is correct, then, the only one of those four that could possibly compare to Sandy in terms of ferocity was "The Great Storm of 1693", which few were around to witness or document. But even then, the storm didn't make landfall from the east, but came up from the southwest, meaning it couldn't possibly have been as intense as Sandy was.

Hurricane Sandy, on the other hand, was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record; the most powerful storm ever to strike the New Jersey coast; the second costliest U.S. storm ever; the second deadliest U.S. storm in 40 years, and on and on and on. So comparing it to other previous storms is sort of pointless and disingenuous. The fact is, there hasn't been a storm so large or intense to affect the NYC area so late in the year for at least 400 years--and possibly much longer than that.

I wonder why that is...
++++++++
Maybe it had to do with the large front that attracted her on shore instead of going out to sea...

In my opinion, the blocking high pressure over Greenland was most anomalous element of this equation, and least talked about. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is a variation of the Arctic Dipole, which just came into existence over the last few years. We are seeing increasingly anomalous climatic events over the Arctic and they are directly related to the melting ice and warming Arctic Ocean.

This is why the odds are increasing that storms like Sandy, which take an odd left turn instead of heading east out to sea, could become more common.

Grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast (veteran of Fredrick and Elena) now living in New Jersey. Thought I had left those storms behind me. I made it through fine, just dealing with inconsistent power as many others are as well. Dad, who is still living down on the Coast (you can add Betsy, Camile, Katrina among other lesser storms to his list), called me up on the Saturday before the storm to go over the hurricane checklist with me. But I had gotten the generator and the bottle water earlier in the week when the first models were coming out.

The last thing we need is yet another storm. Lots of people without power and heat still and it's been cold. That's one thing people generally don't deal with during the aftermath of a hurricane. It's the cold that's really affecting people. Local township is giving out wood collected from cleaning all the fallen trees to people who don't have any heat. Everyone is asking for jackets and winter coats. Thankfully temperatures will be warming up this weekend and into early next week. That should help.

Quoting TomballTXPride:


I'm no expert, but could this have something to do with it?

yes, great graphs here

Quoting Vindibunny:
Grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast (veteran of Fredrick and Elena) now living in New Jersey. Thought I had left those storms behind me. I made it through fine, just dealing with inconsistent power as many others are as well. Dad, who is still living down on the Coast (you can add Betsy, Camile, Katrina among other lesser storms to his list), called me up on the Saturday before the storm to go over the hurricane checklist with me. But I had gotten the generator and the bottle water earlier in the week when the first models were coming out.

The last thing we need is yet another storm. Lots of people without power and heat still and it's been cold. That's one thing people generally don't deal with during the aftermath of a hurricane. It's the cold that's really affecting people. Local township is giving out wood collected from cleaning all the fallen trees to people who don't have any heat. Everyone is asking for jackets and winter coats. Thankfully temperatures will be warming up this weekend and into early next week. That should help.

good luck up there..stay safe ok

Fat Penguin,
Yes, it was a critical element that would not have been critical without a tropical cyclone in the picture. I can't help wondering how many times this type of blocking feature has happened. Could be another 200 years before another "Sandy" occurs.

GFS at 111 hours

Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Fat Penguin,
Yes, it was a critical element that would not have been critical without a tropical cyclone in the picture. I can't help wondering how many times this type of blocking feature has happened. Could be another 200 years before another "Sandy" occurs.

I hope your right, but 200 years is far fetched in my eyes. The region gets its share of storms, and I would not be surprised if something like Sandy struck them again next year with the worlds weather changing the way it is.

water temps going down..............

Quoting hydrus:
I hope your right, but 200 years is far fetched in my eyes. The region gets its share of storms, and I would not be surprised if something like Sandy struck them again next year with the worlds weather changing the way it is.

Thanks for the response.

Saw roughly 400 years ago for historical comparison here and at weatherhistorian's blog. I picked 200 as a compromise. I can't help observing that we humans, in the US and possibly elsewhere, are cycling through that part of the circle where "middle of the road" seems a lost art.

Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


You can't use one system to argue that its climate change....i mean you just bashed using anecdotal evidence a few minutes ago..
Second deadliest etc is the fault of population growth and expansion into dangerous areas, these same areas were vulnerable to a storm like this for hundreds of years and we never got lucky (or unlucky) enough for the timing to line up. This is something that easily couldve happened before and just never did in the short history we have...and for a while it probably wont happen again. I mean heck if this storm surge had peaked at low tide, it passes into history as one of the small billion dollar disasters, gone and forgotten after the much more minor coastline surge damage is repaired.

No, "...you can't use one system to argue that its climate change." What you can use is the number of extreme weather events that are increasing in both severity and frequency. And if you choose to ignore that, well, then, you are willfully ignorant. No?

Quoting Barefootontherocks:
LOL, Neo. You do see in black and white, don't you? And I'm not talking about the color of anyone's Prius.

I popped in to remind you and your pals Esther and Karen that there are some who recognize the overall trend toward global warming has been happening for at least 15,000 years now - in North America anyway. In other words, we/they are not "deniers." At the same time, you will not convince us/them Sandy was worsened by "AGW" during this episode of As the Earth Turns. No reason to think so.

Baseball and steroids, bad analogy. You're talking humans. I'm talking natural processes.

(Add: response to 449. Neapolitan 3:38 PM GMT on November 09, 2012)

Sorry, BFOTR; I can't get much simpler than that analogy. One of the hallmarks of climate science--or any other type of--denialism is claiming that complex explanations are too detailed, while simple ones are too "black and white". IOW, your preconceptions will always prevent you from seeing the truth. But that's okay; science knows what's going on, even if you choose to ignore it. ;-)