WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Why did Hurricane Sandy take such an unusual track into New Jersey?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 4:33 PM GMT on October 31, 2012

We're used to seeing hurricane-battered beaches and flooded cities in Florida, North Carolina, and the Gulf Coast. But to see these images from the Jersey Shore and New York City in the wake of Hurricane Sandy is a shocking experience. New Jersey only rarely gets hit by hurricanes because it lies in a portion of the coast that doesn't stick out much, and is too far north. How did this happen? How was a hurricane able to move from southeast to northwest at landfall, so far north, and so late in hurricane season? We expect hurricanes to move from east to west in the tropics, where the prevailing trade winds blow that direction. But the prevailing wind direction reverses at mid-latitudes, flowing predominately west-to-east, due to the spin of the Earth. Hurricanes that penetrate to about Florida's latitude usually get caught up in these westerly winds, and are whisked northeastwards, out to sea. However, the jet stream, that powerful band of upper-atmosphere west-to-east flowing air, has many dips and bulges. These troughs of low pressure and ridges of high pressure allow winds at mid-latitudes to flow more to the north or to the south. Every so often, a trough in the jet stream bends back on itself when encountering a ridge of high pressure stuck in place ahead of it. These "negatively tilted" troughs have winds that flow from southeast to northwest. It is this sort of negatively tilted trough that sucked in Sandy and allowed the hurricane to take such an unusual path into New Jersey.


Figure 1. Inlet section of Atlantic City, N.J., after Hurricane Sandy. Image credit: 6 ABC Action News.

The 1903 Vagabond Hurricane
The only other hurricane to hit New Jersey since 1851 besides Sandy was the 1903 Category 1 Vagabond Hurricane. According to Wikipedia, the Vagabond Hurricane caused heavy damage along the New Jersey coast ($180 million in 2006 dollars.) The hurricane killed 57 people, and endangered the life of President Theodore Roosevelt, who was sailing on a yacht near Long Island, NY, when the hurricane hit. However, the Vagabond Hurricane hit in September, when the jet stream is typically weaker and farther to the north. It is quite extraordinary that Sandy was able to hit New Jersey in late October, when the jet stream is typically stronger and farther south, making recurvature to the northeast much more likely than in September.


Figure 2. The path of the 1903 Vagabond Hurricane, the only other hurricane to hit New Jersey since 1851.

The blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New Jersey
A strong ridge of high pressure parked itself over Greenland beginning on October 20, creating a "blocking ridge" that prevented the normal west-to-east flow of winds over Eastern North America. Think of the blocking ridge like a big truck parked over Greenland. Storms approaching from the west (like the fall low pressure system that moved across the U.S. from California to Pennsylvania last week) or from the south (Hurricane Sandy) were blocked from heading to the northeast. Caught in the equivalent of an atmospheric traffic jam, the two storms collided over the Northeast U.S., combined into one, and are now waiting for the truck parked over Greenland to move. The strength of the blocking ridge, as measured by the strength of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), was quite high--about two standard deviations from average, something that occurs approximately 5% of the time. When the NAO is in a strong negative phase, we tend to have blocking ridges over Greenland.


Figure 3. Jet stream winds at a pressure of 300 mb on October 29, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy approached the coast of New Jersey. Note that the wind direction over New Jersey (black arrows) was from the southeast, due to a negatively tilted trough of low pressure over the Eastern U.S. caused by a strong blocking ridge of high pressure over Greenland. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.

Arctic sea ice loss can cause blocking ridges
Blocking ridges occur naturally, but are uncommon over Greenland this time of year. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, blocking near the longitude of Greenland (50°W) only occurs about 2% of the time in the fall. These odds rise to about 6% in winter and spring. As I discussed in an April post, Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns, three studies published in the past year have found that the jet stream has been getting stuck in unusually strong blocking patterns in recent years. These studies found that the recent record decline in Arctic sea ice could be responsible, since this heats up the pole, altering the Equator-to-pole temperature difference, forcing the jet stream to slow down, meander, and get stuck in large loops. The 2012 Arctic sea ice melt season was extreme, with sea ice extent hitting a record lows. Could sea ice loss have contributed to the blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New Jersey? It is possible, but we will need to much more research on the subject before we make such a link, as the studies of sea ice loss on jet stream patterns are so new. The author of one of the new studies, Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers, had this say in a recent post by Andy Revkin in his Dot Earth blog: "While it’s impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s, the situation at hand is completely consistent with what I’d expect to see happen more often as a result of unabated warming and especially the amplification of that warming in the Arctic."

Jeff Masters

Hurricane

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Quoting uncwhurricane85:


they rebuild here in north carolina about every 5-10 years, being the strike frequency is no where near what it is here i would imagine they will be able to



Would it be possible to create a Galveston like infrastructure along those coastal areas?
502. BtnTx
Quoting Grothar:


Nice observation.

One of my greatest fears was waiting in line at the "Pearly Gates" behind Mother Theresa, and hearing this big booming voice tell her..."You know, you could have done a little more.."

I've posted this a few times in the past but I think it might be appropriate tonight.

"As you grow older, you will discover that you have two hands, one for helping yourself, the other for helping others."

people that give and help are busy giving and helping NOT BLOGGING ABOUT IT - I will now await my wu ban for the caps - Support Portlight.org!
.
Quoting whitewabit:


The curse was that the list never got beyond the P or R storm I believe
Actually with being one of the most inactive list it never really past the G storm it was almost always the last one.
Quoting sunlinepr:
The question is: Will all those houses and buildings will be allowed to be rebuilt in the same places?

What about a new similar event on the near future?

If they can get insurance at a reasonable price, many will rebuild. I expect that insurance companies will make the cost of insurance for beachfront property unaffordable, so many homes will not be rebuilt.
506. flsky
headed to Howard beach, ny in a couple of days. Anybody have any insights?? Please send to my Wu EMAIL. thanks
Quoting allancalderini:
Actually with being one of the most inactive list it never really past the G storm it was almost always the last one.


Not as bad as it seems. We exceeded the 'G' storm in every instance except 1982 and 1994. The real trouble began when we tried to eclipse Isaac, lol.
Quoting BtnTx:
people that give and help are busy giving and helping NOT BLOGGING ABOUT IT - I will now await my wu ban for the caps - Support Portlight.org!

You can support Portlight, the Red Cross, Salvation Army...you name it...with a couple of mouse clicks while blogging here. I fail to see your point.
Quoting sar2401:

I hope, for the sake of homeowners, that this holds up in court, but it's going to be a tough row to hoe when the NHC showed Sandy as still being a cat 1 at landfall and even for a bit inland.


I don't know about elsewhere, but in Florida -well at least my policy - the deductible is triggered as soon as the storm is named, whether it is a tropical storm or a cat 5. Which is why I said wow!
510. flsky
Quoting sunlinepr:



Would it be possible to create a Galveston like infrastructure along those coastal areas?


That didn't help them much....
Also, this list had a surprisingly large amount of Category 4's (Debby (1982), Gilbert, Helene and Joan in 1988, and Isaac and Keith in 2000).

Quality over quantity, my friends.
Quoting sunlinepr:



Would it be possible to create a Galveston like infrastructure along those areas?


the problem in the mid atlantic is that they havent been hit in so long by something this extreme, but the beach has been slowly eaten away by noreasters and tropical storms over time, and they keep trying to add rocks or sand that make unprotective weak dunes, if you have ever been to a beach like rehobeth, deleware, or seaside, nj you know the ocean was already coming up under the docks and right up to the dune line or steps of houses, it really doesnt take a sandy like storm to cause this type of destruction up there, areas of N.C. Florida and the gulf can take a much larger hit than sandy and recover rather well due to that fact we frequently get hit by such storms and rebuild stronger and stronger every time. In the mid atlantic they have just been building and building with the same codes and on the same sands whithout doing much replenishing or beafing up protection at the rate of building homes and businesses. Well Monday it caught up with them. The only way to rebuild is to rebuild it 10 times stronger but theres always the chance it could happen again and maybe even stronger.
Quoting knative:

Actually, this tweet is real.
Link
Link

Here's the video of the story that the tweet was referring to.

Then Shawn need to do fact checking. Interviewing a civilian about what they think might happen, along with unattributed "law enforcement sources" is not news - it's speculation, and speculation of the worst kind.
Just wow:



Quoting MrMixon:
Just wow:





Holy ****.
Quoting sar2401:

Then Shawn need to do fact checking. Interviewing a civilian about what they think might happen, along with unattributed "law enforcement sources" is not news - it's speculation, and specualtion of the worst kind.


Watch the video. The news reporters were talking to a civilian, and they talked to law enforcement officials to confirm what she was saying.
Quoting sunlinepr:



Would it be possible to create a Galveston like infrastructure along those coastal areas?

There are two immediate issues I see from looking at the pictures:

1. Homes were built directly on the beach

2. Many of the homes were not elevated with flow-through support structures.

The state and local governments can mandate set backs from the beach and elevation of existing or new housing. It wouldn't have taken a storm the size of Sandy to cause catastrophic destruction - it's just that Sandy's size and energy made it much worse

This aerial photo shows burned-out homes in the Breezy Point section of the Queens borough New York after a fire on Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012. The tiny beachfront neighborhood told to evacuate before Sandy hit New York burned down as it was inundated by floodwaters, transforming a quaint corner of the Rockaways into a smoke-filled debris field. (AP Photo/Mike Groll)

Been a long time since we've seen this:

ZCZC MIATWOAT ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
800 PM EDT WED OCT 31 2012

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.

$$
FORECASTER BRENNAN
NNNN
Quoting knative:


Watch the video. The news reporters were talking to a civilian, and they talked to law enforcement officials to confirm what she was saying.

No, that's not what the reporter said. He stated he talked to unnamed "law enforcement officials" that agreed with the civilian. These officials had no more knowledge of how many people may or may not have persished in those homes than the civilian. I've done flood rescue before, and this kind of thing is total speculation. I've been at scenes that didn't look bad and found far more bodies than in neighborhoods that were completely underwater. Let the SAR teams do their jobs and we'll soon enough know the truth. This kind of speculation only serves to make the waiting worse for relatives and friends of people who may be missing in that area.
Quoting flsky:


That didn't help them much....


True....



Seems like the only solution to secure your family in such an event, is to make reservations in advance, securring the best you can your property... then get all your personal papers, and leave and drive away, staying in a motel or guesthouse in another state.... Then come back when the situation eases.... My sister left NOLA 3 days before Katrina, driving with all the family to Memphis and staying in a Holyday Inn.... Then they came back one week later....

Quoting MrMixon:
Just wow:




Imagine 2,000 homes like this on fire, all at or about the same time, with 100 mph winds and temperatures of 100 degrees. That was the Oakland Hills Firestorm of 1991. As bad as this was, "Wow!" doesn't come close to describing that one.
Rosa is becoming increasingly separated from the deep convection:

Well, law enforcement officials would probably know how many people have been found. I think we should be skeptical though. You are right. "Multiple police officials confirm her worst fears" is a very nebulous phrase.
Quoting sunlinepr:


True....



Seems like the only solution to secure your family in such an event, is to make reservations in advance, securring the best you can your property... then get all your personal papers, and leave and drive away, staying in a motel or guesthouse in another state.... Then come back when the situation eases.... My sister left NOLA 3 days before Katrina, driving with all the family to Memphis and staying in a Holyday Inn.... Then they came back one week later....


That's one of the reasons I live in my motorhome. If things get bad, I just unhook and drive my house away. If you want to live near the beach, it's really not a bad idea.
Quoting knative:
Well, law enforcement officials would probably know how many people have been found. Though, you are right though. I think we should be skeptical though. You are right. "Multiple police officials confirm her worst fears" is a very nebulous phrase.

As I said, the police also have no idea how many people are still in those homes. They shouldn't be talking to reporters about this either. We will all know how many people have been found once the SAR teams complete their work. Speculating about how many might be found serves no useful purpose, and has a lot of negative side effects.
527. flsky
Quoting sar2401:

That's one of the reasons I live in my motorhome. If things get bad, I just unhook and drive my house away. If you want to live near the beach, it's really not a bad idea.


Not everyone can afford a motorhome....
The ability of some to take a historical disaster like this and twist it for their own political gain makes me sick beyond words. Dozens of people are dead. Thousands saw their homes damaged or destroyed. Millions are without power. This storm caused billions in damage, and is one of the worst natural disasters in the history of this country. How can anybody watch the devastation caused by this and think about how they can spin this to advance their own personal crusade against truth? This is worse than the nut jobs who try to tie religion into disasters - and by the way, there's just as much evidence that God was punishing the northeast with Sandy as their is that humans caused global warming, or that global warming caused Sandy.

When will enough be enough?
Quoting flsky:


Not everyone can afford a motorhome....

Compared to a beach home? A motorhome is pretty cheap by comparison. Heck, compared to a lot of new cars, a motorhome a few years old and in good shape is cheap. Most motorhomes are not the $500,000 palaces on wheels many people think of when they hear the word.
530. flsky
Quoting sar2401:

Compared to a beach home? A motorhome is pretty cheap by comparison. Heck, compared to a lot of new cars, a motorhome a few years old and in good shape is cheap. Most motorhomes are not the $500,000 palaces on wheels many people think of when they hear the word.


I suppose if you're in the 65-85 year-old range, you will stay with the home you've paid on all your life. When elderly, it might be hard to operate a motor home - if you could afford it. The poor aren't always who you think they are....
Photos from a plane are starting to be posted into the Sandy Rapid response imagery.
Quoting StopThePropoganda:
The ability of some to take a historical disaster like this and twist it for their own political gain makes me sick beyond words. Dozens of people are dead. Thousands saw their homes damaged or destroyed. Millions are without power. This storm caused billions in damage, and is one of the worst natural disasters in the history of this country. How can anybody watch the devastation caused by this and think about how they can spin this to advance their own personal crusade against truth? This is worse than the nut jobs who try to tie religion into disasters - and by the way, there's just as much evidence that God was punishing the northeast with Sandy as their is that humans caused global warming, or that global warming caused Sandy.

When will enough be enough?

I don't know. When Katrina hit us in the South, I remember an awful lot of posts about how we rednecks had it coming to us because (choose your reason)....There was also a lot of political posturing on both sides about what or what wasn't being done to help. It seems to be part of the human condition that some take peverse delight in the suffering of others...until it happens to them.
Quoting flsky:


I suppose if you're in the 65-85 year-old range, you will stay with the home you've paid on all your life. When elderly, it might be hard to operate a motor home - if you could afford it. The poor aren't always who you think they are....

I'm 66, and sold my paid for home that I worked for all my life, bought my motorhome, and enjoy traveling the country. The "elderly" are not always as helpless or as poor as you think they are either. :)
India Meteorological Department
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #24
DEPRESSION, FORMER NILAM (BOB02-2012)
5:30 AM IST November 1 2012
=============================================

At 0:00 AM UTC, The deep depression over northern Tamil Nadu and neighborhood moved northwestward and weakened into a depression over Rayalaseema and adjoining area of southern interior Karnataka. Depression, Former Nilam lay centered near 14.0N 77.5E, or a bout 75 km south of Anantapur. The system is likely to move west northwestwards and weaken further into a low pressure area during the next 12 hours.
535. flsky
Quoting sar2401:

I'm 66, and sold my paid for home that I worked for all my life, bought my motorhome, and enjoy traveling the country. The "elderly" are not always as helpless or as poor as you think they are either. :)

My mother as an example - while in her sixties, she and a friend considered selling what they owned outright and buying a motor home. By the time my mom was 70 she had had a number of strokes and didn't really know where she lived at all. Could she have operated a motor home at that point? I'm just saying take everything under consideration. We sometimes don't take into account what will happen when we age.
Quoting KoritheMan:


Not as bad as it seems. We exceeded the 'G' storm in every instance except 1982 and 1994. The real trouble began when we tried to eclipse Isaac, lol.
Which is the most inactive list this one or the one of 2009?
This is for GRO in post 391

https://www.citizensfla.com/about/CitizensAssessm ents.cfm

Last year citizens assessed my car ins 3% boat ins 3% home owners 3% All three are assessed against my property tax. Only because it is a state agency can the levy an assessment on the auto and boat on my POPERTY tax. This means if I don't pay it they won't cancel my insurance with allstate as I paid that. They will just take my house for not paying my property tax.

A scam a private company could never get away with.

Everyone in the state with any kind of insurance is assessed something by citizens and the amount is totally up to them (to a point)
Quoting allancalderini:
Which is the most inactive list this one or the one of 2009?


You know what? I had never considered that before, but quite surprisingly, it appears this list comes out on top. 66 storms to the other list's 61, and 33 hurricanes relative to 28.

In terms of big storms though, the 2009 list comes out on top.
off to bed. good night all, stay safe
540. wjdow
Quoting sunlinepr:


True....



Seems like the only solution to secure your family in such an event, is to make reservations in advance, securring the best you can your property... then get all your personal papers, and leave and drive away, staying in a motel or guesthouse in another state.... Then come back when the situation eases.... My sister left NOLA 3 days before Katrina, driving with all the family to Memphis and staying in a Holyday Inn.... Then they came back one week later....

li believe that photo is from Bolivar Island, not Galveston.
Quoting KoritheMan:


You know what? I had never considered that before, but quite surprisingly, it appears this list comes out on top. 66 storms to the other list's 61, and 33 hurricanes relative to 28.

In terms of big storms though, the 2009 list comes out on top.
oh ok thanks ;) I know I can always ask you this thing because you have a great knowledge about it.
Quoting allancalderini:
oh ok thanks ;) I know I can always ask you this thing because you have a great knowledge about it.


I have such a great knowledge I had to stop and do math just to figure that out. :/

But thanks for the compliment. Kinda makes me feel all warm inside. *strokes e-d**k*
Quoting flsky:

My mother as an example - while in her sixties, she and a friend considered selling what they owned outright and buying a motor home. By the time my mom was 70 she had had a number of strokes and didn't really know where she lived at all. Could she have operated a motor home at that point? I'm just saying take everything under consideration. We sometimes don't take into account what will happen when we age.

True, and, if that time comes for me, I have insurance and enough money in the bank from the sale of my home to pay for my care. My motorhome, which is a 1995 Safari Trek, cost me $38,000 in 2005. It's worth about $20,000 now, but still serves as a nice home for me. The good thing about a paid for house is that you can manage the money you get from the sale, plus your SS check, and have a reasonable income to live off of each month. I will admit I was lucky selling at the top of the market, but it can still be done.

To younger people who want to live a comfortable life in retirement, one bit of advice - GET OUT OF DEBT. You really don't need all that stuff you buy with money you don't have. Learn to live debt free and you will be as close to rich as you need to be by the time you're 60.
Quoting KoritheMan:


I have such a great knowledge I had to stop and do math just to figure that out. :/

But thanks for the compliment. Kinda makes me feel all warm inside. *strokes e-d**k*
lol you make me laugh.thanks.
Quoting allancalderini:
lol you make me laugh.thanks.


Nothing wrong with a little laughter on your birthday. :)
Quoting wjdow:
li believe that photo is from Bolivar Island, not Galveston.


Yes, it was.... got one from Galveston.... Wikipedia... Thanks
Quoting KoritheMan:


Nothing wrong with a little laughter on your birthday. :)
Technically is 11:40 in Honduras so its not my birthday :p but thanks very much you are the second person to wish me hbd.I am so anxious for a call that someone important told me that he would call me at 2:00 am the hour I was born.can`t wait.you know an interesting fact about me is that it always rain on my birthday.
Quoting allancalderini:
Technically is 11:40 in Honduras so its not my birthday :p but thanks very much you are the second person to wish me hbd.I am so anxious for a call that someone important told me that he would call me at 2:00 am the hour I was born.can`t wait.you know an interesting fact about me is that it always rain on my birthday.


Is it raining this year?
Don't go wading at Kitty Hawk ...

Looks like a little bull shark.

Quoting KoritheMan:


Is it raining this year?
Hoping for it happens.Thank God we are in the rainy season.;)
Quoting OracleDeAtlantis:
Don't go wading at Kitty Hawk ...

Looks like a little bull shark.


Another post-Sandy fake. Check at Snopes Sandy Fakes before reposting this kind of thing.
Quoting sunlinepr:


Yes, it was.... got one from Galveston.... Wikipedia... Thanks
Bolivar is actually in Galveston County. The part of the city of Galveston that was behind the seawall was saved by the wall. Yet may have forced more water towards Bolivar and into the Bay. Bayside towns like Kemah, Bacliff, and San Leon were hard hit all are in Galveston County. Your photo looks to be from the west end of the island where no wall protects it.
Quoting MrMixon:
Just wow:





That's what an uncontrollable fire looks like. We see it in bush fires all over the world, especially when the Santa Ana wind gets a blowin'
Quoting OracleDeAtlantis:
Don't go wading at Kitty Hawk ...

Looks like a little bull shark.



Looks a lot like this shark! A lot!!

India Meteorological Department
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #25
DEPRESSION, FORMER NILAM (BOB02-2012)
8:30 AM IST November 1 2012
=============================================

At 3:00 AM UTC, The depression over Rayalaseema and adjoining area of southern interior Karnataka moved westward and now lays near 14.0N 76.5E, near Chitradurga. The system will likely move northwestward and weaken further into a low pressure area during the next 12 hours.
Quoting sfranz:
I saw a recent press conference with Bloomberg. He seems to have gotten that his evacuation order was a bit late and too conservative.

Guess he'll have to live with that call.



Actually he should resign for misjudgement.

---

The problem with the NOAA was that they bent the rules. Tropical storm warnings are announced when tropical storm conditions (sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph) are possible within the specified area within 48 hours. Well, according to their own rules NHC should have put the whole coast from North Carolina up to Massachusetts under a tropcial storm warning on last Saturday when the storm definitely still was a hurricane. The same for hurrciane warnings. They didn't. Sandy still was full tropical when tropical storm winds reached the coast. When the radius of maximum winds reached the New Jersey and Long Island coasts Sandy was still classified full tropical. While they got predictions of intensity, track, storm surge, and other hazards pretty exactly their forecasting philosophy was big fail.

According to their pamphlet (the PDF mentioned earlier on this blog) they did this for not confusing the public when tropical storm warnings/hurricane warnings would've ceased after et transition but still nor'easter/blizzard conditions would've continued for a long time (which in the area proper btw did not happen because Sandy absorbed much of the other systems, blizzard conditions f.ex. happened only in parts of the Appalachians which anyways would't have been under hurricane/tropical storm warnings). Putting up graphics with a tropcial storm warning at the coast of North Carolina but lacking warnings for the coast north of that while Sandy was smacking down on the coast as a hurricane was a really bad, bad solution. People are looking on graphics, they're not reading advisories – some are not able to read or they don't understand terminology. Within this blog readers mostly understand the difference between hurricane winds and hurricane-force winds, the general public does not know about the difference, nor they understand the why.

Whoever was responsible for that bad judgement within NOAA should resign as well.
558. vanwx
Quoting Matthias1967:


Actually he should resign for misjudgement.

---

The problem with the NOAA was that they bent the rules. Tropical storm warnings are announced when tropical storm conditions (sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph) are possible within the specified area within 48 hours. Well, according to their own rules NHC should have put the whole coast from North Carolina up to Massachusetts under a tropcial storm warning on last Saturday when the storm definitely still was a hurricane. The same for hurrciane warnings. They didn't. Sandy still was full tropical when tropical storm winds reached the coast. When the radius of maximum winds reached the New Jersey and Long Island coasts Sandy was still classified full tropical. While they got predictions of intensity, track, storm surge, and other hazards pretty exactly their forecasting philosophy was big fail.

According to their pamphlet (the PDF mentioned earlier on this blog) they did this for not confusing the public when tropical storm warnings/hurricane warnings would've ceased after et transition but still nor'easter/blizzard conditions would've continued for a long time (which in the area proper btw did not happen because Sandy absorbed much of the other systems, blizzard conditions f.ex. happened only in parts of the Appalachians which anyways would't have been under hurricane/tropical storm warnings). Putting up graphics with a tropcial storm warning at the coast of North Carolina but lacking warnings for the coast north of that while Sandy was smacking down on the coast as a hurricane was a really bad, bad solution. People are looking on graphics, they're not reading advisories – some are not able to read or they don't understand terminology. Within this blog readers mostly understand the difference between hurricane winds and hurricane-force winds, the general public does not know about the difference, nor they understand the why.

Whoever was responsible for that bad judgement within NOAA should resign as well.


Excuse me. This storm had the best warning, most advanced warning ever. It was called 11 days before at WU on NOAA data. Only local real estate types pooh-poohed it, including Bloomberg. Now you want to go hang someone because you had your life set on 'ignore'. Well, lah-ti-dah, that warning was for you.
Quoting vanwx:


Excuse me. This storm had the best warning, most advanced warning ever. It was called 11 days before at WU on NOAA data. Only local real estate types pooh-poohed it, including Bloomberg. Now you want to go hang someone because you had your life set on 'ignore'. Well, lah-ti-dah, that warning was for you.


I'm not sure you're paying attention to what the person wrote. They're talking about the official category for different areas of tropical storm / hurricane warnings, not that "NOAA didn't predict the storm". It's about a decision on whether to use a classification that has a psychological impact for many people or not.

And Matthias *certainly* wasn't talking about himself.
Has anyone posted this?
Florence TCR

*Tropical Storm Aletta - PDF - KMZ
*Hurricane Bud - PDF - KMZ
*Hurricane Daniel - PDF - KMZ
*Hurricane Emilia - PDF - KMZ

Four EPAC TCRs issued.
Good morning/evening all. The pictures still coming out are so devestating. Not being used to hurricanes or their after effects, I'm not sure that while many did prepare, they got enough food and water. They generally say enough for three days, but some of these people are looking at more than that before they are even rescued.
Good morning.
Hurricane Sandy death toll reaches 74.

Link
Quoting BADHYPEAGAIN:
Was this worst then katrina?


Certainly not in the number of deaths. As to the financial and property loss, it might. I don't know enough about that and I think they are being careful not to compare them yet. I don't think they have a full handle on the cost of Sandy yet either.
Quoting aislinnpaps:


Certainly not in the number of deaths. As to the financial and property loss, it might. I don't know enough about that and I think they are being careful not to compare them yet. I don't think they have a full handle on the cost of Sandy yet either.


I think when it's all said and done, Sandy will be the 2nd most destructive hurricane to hit the US, beating out Ike.
Quoting Matthias1967:


Actually he should resign for misjudgement.

---

The problem with the NOAA was that they bent the rules. Tropical storm warnings are announced when tropical storm conditions (sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph) are possible within the specified area within 48 hours. Well, according to their own rules NHC should have put the whole coast from North Carolina up to Massachusetts under a tropcial storm warning on last Saturday when the storm definitely still was a hurricane. The same for hurrciane warnings. They didn't. Sandy still was full tropical when tropical storm winds reached the coast. When the radius of maximum winds reached the New Jersey and Long Island coasts Sandy was still classified full tropical. While they got predictions of intensity, track, storm surge, and other hazards pretty exactly their forecasting philosophy was big fail.

According to their pamphlet (the PDF mentioned earlier on this blog) they did this for not confusing the public when tropical storm warnings/hurricane warnings would've ceased after et transition but still nor'easter/blizzard conditions would've continued for a long time (which in the area proper btw did not happen because Sandy absorbed much of the other systems, blizzard conditions f.ex. happened only in parts of the Appalachians which anyways would't have been under hurricane/tropical storm warnings). Putting up graphics with a tropcial storm warning at the coast of North Carolina but lacking warnings for the coast north of that while Sandy was smacking down on the coast as a hurricane was a really bad, bad solution. People are looking on graphics, they're not reading advisories – some are not able to read or they don't understand terminology. Within this blog readers mostly understand the difference between hurricane winds and hurricane-force winds, the general public does not know about the difference, nor they understand the why.

Whoever was responsible for that bad judgement within NOAA should resign as well.
I watched closely and posted graphics as Sandy passed over the Gulf Stream for the last time, with a deep warm core and convection strengthening directly over the center. That was fully tropical intensification near the center. The NHC should have never declared her extratropical so close to landfall in the first place, because she was obviously still some kind of hybrid storm. On top of that you are absolutely correct in your observation that there should have been TS and Hurricane watches and warnings all the way up the east coast as per the NHC's own policies.
Good Morning!

Watching GMA and they are doing a report on NJ on the damaged gas lines..towns have exposed gas lines that could go anytime..residents are still living there as they have no where to go..the situation is just getting dire by the minute..

There are still so many power outages and its dipping into freezing in some areas..

NY Red Cross ‏@redcrossny

Now that it's safe 2 move vehicles &personel, 35 @redcross trucks en route 2 NYC with food, h20, snacks &cleanup supplies 4 distribution.
My thoughts and prayers to all still affected by Sandy.

I hope all can have a good Thursday.
Quoting Bobbyweather:
Has anyone posted this?
Florence TCR

*Tropical Storm Aletta - PDF - KMZ
*Hurricane Bud - PDF - KMZ
*Hurricane Daniel - PDF - KMZ
*Hurricane Emilia - PDF - KMZ

Four EPAC TCRs issued.




yes that's be posted last night
Quoting guygee:
I watched closely and posted graphics as Sandy passed over the Gulf Stream for the last time, with a deep warm core and convection strengthening directly over the center. That was fully tropical intensification near the center. The NHC should have never declared her extratropical so close to landfall in the first place, because she was obviously still some kind of hybrid storm. On top of that you are absolutely correct in your observation that there should have been TS and Hurricane watches and warnings all the way up the east coast as per the NHC's own policies.


I agree, at 11am that morning in the discussion, the NHC said that a 20 N Mile eye had developed and a small area of deep convection still maintained. At that time, the east coast was receiving tropical storm force winds yet there was no TROPICAL STORM WARNINGS! And, 5 hours later she made landfall. Make no sense to me.
there was plenty warning gave by nhc people bloomberg included just did not believe it would occur. seems like we have had a few storms of recent irene isacc and now sandy the have deep low pressure yet lacked the winds. might need to revamp how these storms are measured.
Again..if the national media wasnt calling it "Hurricane Sandy" but "Superstorm Sandy" when it was a hurricane, how can you solely blame the NHC for failing to label a storm and issuing hurricane warnings? Its really hard to take the name "Superstorm Sandy" seriously, so I can see why some people could have ignore it...Most people get their news from the television networks so there are a lot of people in this day and age who wouldnt know much about the NHC..I for one believe that the NHC/NWS did their jobs in alerting the public..
.
Quoting ncstorm:
Again..if the national media wasnt calling it "Hurricane Sandy" but "Superstorm Sandy" when it was a hurricane, how can you solely blame the NHC for failing to label a storm and issuing hurricane warnings? Its really hard to take the name "Superstorm Sandy" seriously, so I can see why some people could have ignore it...Most people get their news from the television networks so there are a lot of people in this day and age who wouldnt know much about the NHC..I for one believe that the NHC/NWS did their jobs in alerting the public..
Matthias1967 has a strong case. By the NHC's own rules they should have put up first TS watches and then TS warnings and Hurricane warnings, because Sandy was tropical, and just because they forecast her to become non-tropical does not mean they are necessarily correct. What they did was assume that their forecast was correct and not put up the warnings, then the forecast became automagically correct because that is how they planned the hand-off to the NWS.

Yes, the NHC did a great job in correctly forecasting the track of the storm, and a very good job with the forecast of the intensity and the surge, but at the very least they did bend their own rules exactly as Matthias1967 described.
Sorry about the above longgg post of mine ... should have posted the link, good story though. I need more coffee, will correct later. :)Link
Quoting icmoore:
Sorry about the above longgg post of mine ... should have posted the link, good story though. I need more coffee, will correct later. :)
At the very least, you should provide attribution (writer[s] and publication). Also, it'd be a lot easier to read if you could S&R the HMTL character entity codes with the actual punctuation you intended.

Speaking of Sandy, here are the latest sad statistics compiled from news sources and presented via Wikipedia:

Sandy
Quoting Neapolitan:
At the very least, you should provide attribution (writer[s] and publication). Also, it'd be a lot easier to read if you could S&R the HMTL character entity codes with the actual punctuation you intended.

Speaking of Sandy, here are the latest sad statistics compiled from news sources and presented via


Good morning and yes I agree with you and I usually do. I made a mistake and apologized but I shall do it again...please forgive my lapse.
Thanks again as always your perfection is underwhelming...oops must get coffee :)

Link
Quoting clwstmchasr:


I agree, at 11am that morning in the discussion, the NHC said that a 20 N Mile eye had developed and a small area of deep convection still maintained. At that time, the east coast was receiving tropical storm force winds yet there was no TROPICAL STORM WARNINGS! And, 5 hours later she made landfall. Make no sense to me.
Ohh, but those were "extratropical tropical storm force winds". /sarcasm

In this aspect NOAA has to get rid of the turf wars or whatever the problem is and integrate more tightly. This is reminds me of the 2005 Hurricane Stan debacle in a way. Why did they retire Stan? It was the WMO vs. NOAA on that one I think.
Quoting ncstorm:
Again..if the national media wasnt calling it "Hurricane Sandy" but "Superstorm Sandy" when it was a hurricane, how can you solely blame the NHC for failing to label a storm and issuing hurricane warnings? Its really hard to take the name "Superstorm Sandy" seriously, so I can see why some people could have ignore it...Most people get their news from the television networks so there are a lot of people in this day and age who wouldnt know much about the NHC..I for one believe that the NHC/NWS did their jobs in alerting the public..


I disagree. The NHC has cried "wolf" a few times on the east coast and some have become complacent. Regardless, when the real thing comes along huffing and puffing and blowing their houses down, the NHC hides behind the strictist interpretation of a meteorlogical "Tropical Cyclone" to declare it non tropical about 50 miles offshore and not issue warnings. I think that was a mistake as the term "Hurricane Warning" seems to get more peoples attention in a way that other warnings don't.
Quoting ncstorm:
Again..if the national media wasnt calling it "Hurricane Sandy" but "Superstorm Sandy" when it was a hurricane, how can you solely blame the NHC for failing to label a storm and issuing hurricane warnings? Its really hard to take the name "Superstorm Sandy" seriously, so I can see why some people could have ignore it...Most people get their news from the television networks so there are a lot of people in this day and age who wouldnt know much about the NHC..I for one believe that the NHC/NWS did their jobs in alerting the public..


Why did the media start calling it "Superstorm" Sandy, Cause the NHC stopped calling it a Hurricane and stopped issuing Hurricane and Tropical storm warnings. It's been show here and will probably be shown during the Barometer Bob show tonight your time that Sandy was warm cored up until and after landfall.

It even caught me out, I went to the NHC to see if Sandy was still a Hurricane and found she was but no watches or warnings cause they had passed Sandy over to the NWS.

Why did they hand it over to the NWS to issue watches and warnings?
Why not continue issuing watches and warnings?
Did the NHC stopping issuing these watches and warning make people become complacent?
Which sounds more foreboding Category 1 Hurricane Sandy or "Superstorm" Sandy.

Did people thinking that Sandy was only a Category 1 Hurricane before the handover make them think Sandy would have the same as Irene on landfall?

Did the NHC under-forecast the storm-tide? I remember seeing they predicted 6'-11' for New York/Battery Park.

These are just a few Questions I have.
Morning all, I can see that the damage estimates were updated to 55 billion this morning, and the death toll is up to 70 in the USA. That makes Sandy the 2nd most destructive hurricane ever recorded, ~30 billion behind Katrina. Horrific.

Link
I wrote a blog update on Rosa.
Have a great day everyone, bye.
Dems push climate change issue in wake of Sandy, but some scientists skeptical

As the East Coast grapples with the fallout of Hurricane Sandy, Democrats are sounding the alarm over climate change, suggesting that carbon pollution played a role in bringing about the deadly storm.

“Hurricane Sandy is exactly the type of extreme weather event that climate scientists have said will become more frequent and more severe if we fail to reduce our carbon pollution,” Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Bobby Rush of Illinois wrote in a letter Wednesday to Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Waxman and Rush called on Upton to convene a lame-duck congressional hearing on the matter, accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.

“For two years, the House of Representatives has pretended that climate change is not happening and that the consequences can be dismissed without concern,” they wrote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/dems-tr y-to-push-climate-change-issue-in-wake-sandy-but-s ome-scientists/#ixzz2AyRLUQCh
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


I disagree. The NHC has cried "wolf" a few times on the east coast and some have become complacent. Regardless, when the real thing comes along huffing and puffing and blowing their houses down, the NHC hides behind the strictist interpretation of a meteorlogical "Tropical Cyclone" to declare it non tropical about 50 miles offshore and not issue warnings. I think that was a mistake as the term "Hurricane Warning" seems to get more peoples attention in a way that other warnings don't.

Truer words have never been said.
Good morning all, BTW.
Quoting guygee:
Matthias1967 has a strong case. By the NHC's own rules they should have put up first TS watches and then TS warnings and Hurricane warnings, because Sandy was tropical, and just because they forecast her to become non-tropical does not mean they are necessarily correct. What they did was assume that their forecast was correct and not put up the warnings, then the forecast became automagically correct because that is how they planned the hand-off to the NWS.

Yes, the NHC did a great job in correctly forecasting the track of the storm, and a very good job with the forecast of the intensity and the surge, but at the very least they did bend their own rules exactly as Matthias1967 described.


I do get what a lot of people are saying but most people are familiar more with their local NWS offices than the NHC..the NWS offices issued high wind warnings for those areas so warnings were out there..by not labeling them tropical or hurricane warnings still dosent diminish the fact that wind warnings were issued..and was it really wind damage that caused the severity of the destruction..no it was the surge and flooding..In the NHC discussion they wrote "Life Threatening Surge Event"..that was the HUGE issue with Sandy and thats what they stressed about..All agencies acted approriately in my book..the media on the other hand is who I have issues with and people should call out..I even noticed in the latest updates that they are NOW using Hurricane Sandy instead of Superstorm Sandy..
Quoting AussieStorm:


Why did the media start calling it "Superstorm" Sandy, Cause the NHC stopped calling it a Hurricane and stopped issuing Hurricane and Tropical storm warnings. It's been show here and will probably be shown during the Barometer Bob show tonight your time that Sandy was warm cored up until and after landfall.

It even caught me out, I went to the NHC to see if Sandy was still a Hurricane and found she was but no watches or warnings cause they had passed Sandy over to the NWS.

Why did they hand it over to the NWS to issue watches and warnings?
Why not continue issuing watches and warnings?
Did the NHC stopping issuing these watches and warning make people become complacent?
Which sounds more foreboding Category 1 Hurricane Sandy or "Superstorm" Sandy.

Did people thinking that Sandy was only a Category 1 Hurricane before the handover make them think Sandy would have the same as Irene on landfall?

Did the NHC under-forecast the storm-tide? I remember seeing they predicted 6'-11' for New York/Battery Park.

These are just a few Questions I have.


No Aussie, the media was calling it Superstorm Sandy when it was down by the bahamas..the NHC had this label as a hurricane and all you saw in the headlines was "Superstorm Sandy heading for the Northeast"
The carrabiean blob is under an upper level ridge.
Quoting ncstorm:


No Aussie, the media was calling it Superstorm Sandy when it was down by the bahamas..the NHC had this label as a hurricane and all you saw in the headlines was "Superstorm Sandy heading for the Northeast"

I was watching TWC and CNN here, they were calling it Hurricane Sandy, now they call it Superstorm Sandy. I am not sure about the Media there. So I may be wrong on that one.
Quoting ncstorm:


I do get what a lot of people are saying but most people are familiar more with their local NWS offices than the NHC..the NWS offices issued high wind warnings for those areas so warnings were out there..by not labeling them tropical or hurricane warnings still dosent diminish the fact that wind warnings were issued..and was it really wind damage that caused the severity of the destruction..no it was the surge and flooding..In the NHC discussion they wrote "Life Threatening Surge Event"..that was the HUGE issue with Sandy and thats what they stressed about..All agencies acted approriately in my book..the media on the other hand is who I have issues with and people should call out..I even noticed in the latest updates that they are NOW using Hurricane Sandy instead of Superstorm Sandy..
Well at least they are getting it right now calling it Hurricane Sandy. Yes the surge was the worst of it, and that huge pile of water was built up while Sandy was a Hurricane. How exactly does a tropical cyclone go directly to extratropical cyclone anyways without going through a hybrid phase? That can happen in the case of total decoupling and integration with a frontal system perhaps, or absorption into a stronger existing extratropical system, but neither of those cases apply here.
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


I disagree. The NHC has cried "wolf" a few times on the east coast and some have become complacent. Regardless, when the real thing comes along huffing and puffing and blowing their houses down, the NHC hides behind the strictist interpretation of a meteorlogical "Tropical Cyclone" to declare it non tropical about 50 miles offshore and not issue warnings. I think that was a mistake as the term "Hurricane Warning" seems to get more peoples attention in a way that other warnings don't.
Can you please provide us with concrete examples of when "The NHC has cried 'wolf' a few times on the east coast"?

The NHC obviously did a fantastic job in predicting Sandy's timing, location, and intensity. In retrospect it's easy to claim they made the wrong call in not posting tropical warnings for NY and NJ, but all indications at the time were that Sandy would come ashore as a non-tropical entity, albeit a strong one. That is, of course, why they repeatedly tacked on the following to most of their pre-landfall discussions:

"AS NOTED IN PREVIOUS ADVISORIES...TO AVOID A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE
CHANGE FROM TROPICAL TO NON-TROPICAL WARNINGS WHEN SANDY BECOMES
POST-TROPICAL...THE WIND HAZARD NORTH OF THE TROPICAL STORM WARNING
AREA WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONVEYED THROUGH HIGH WIND WATCHES AND
WARNINGS ISSUED BY LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICES."


And that would have, indeed, been "highly disruptive". Chaotic, even. Imagine had they posted hurricane watches and /or warnings on, say, Saturday, then had to change those back to high wind warnings; I can imagine many people might not have taken the situation seriously.

Having said all that, I agree that something needs to be done differently next time, for there will, indeed, be a next time. I'm not sure whether that means the NHC should post the hurricane warnings, and allow those to supersede any local WFO warnings in place, or a new hybrid type of entity needs to be created, such as a "Hurricane/Nor'easter Warning".

(I noticed that JB started relentlessly hammering the NHC fir their decision on Monday afternoon hours before the storm even made landfall. But it's been my experience that he relentlessly hammers the NHC--and the NWS, and NOAA, and rival private forecasters--for pretty much everything. He's like the gripy old guy at the bar; I tend to ignore his ranting. I wish more did.)
594. atris
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Dems push climate change issue in wake of Sandy, but some scientists skeptical

As the East Coast grapples with the fallout of Hurricane Sandy, Democrats are sounding the alarm over climate change, suggesting that carbon pollution played a role in bringing about the deadly storm.

“Hurricane Sandy is exactly the type of extreme weather event that climate scientists have said will become more frequent and more severe if we fail to reduce our carbon pollution,” Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Bobby Rush of Illinois wrote in a letter Wednesday to Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Waxman and Rush called on Upton to convene a lame-duck congressional hearing on the matter, accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.

“For two years, the House of Representatives has pretended that climate change is not happening and that the consequences can be dismissed without concern,” they wrote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/dems-tr y-to-push-climate-change-issue-in-wake-sandy-but-s ome-scientists/#ixzz2AyRLUQCh


Interesting piece , Being rather new to the forum I like that both sides of the argument/debate are allowed to present their case ... Gives people a chance to make an informed opinion.
Quoting atris:


Interesting piece , Being rather new to the forum I like that both sides of the argument/debate are allowed to present their case ... Gives people a chance to make an informed opinion.

I like it, too. At least at the others places I blog, there is usually two sides of the story, both sides bringing commentary in and then allowing users to decide for themselves upon what to believe. Not here. Here, one is ostracized for allowing anything to be introduced into the equation that doesn't suggest man is solely changing the climate. Oh well. Just an observation.
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


I disagree. The NHC has cried "wolf" a few times on the east coast and some have become complacent. Regardless, when the real thing comes along huffing and puffing and blowing their houses down, the NHC hides behind the strictist interpretation of a meteorlogical "Tropical Cyclone" to declare it non tropical about 50 miles offshore and not issue warnings. I think that was a mistake as the term "Hurricane Warning" seems to get more peoples attention in a way that other warnings don't.

Please give an example of the NHC crying wolf. I don't think that's quite factual.
Quoting AussieStorm:

I was watching TWC and CNN here, they were calling it Hurricane Sandy, now they call it Superstorm Sandy. I am not sure about the Media there. So I may be wrong on that one.


I did a search engine on Google "superstorm sandy" October 28, 2012 and for "superstorm sandy" October 27, 2012..go in and type in that same result and see all the headlines with that name in it and lets not forget Frankenstorm Sandy as well..
Quoting ncstorm:


No Aussie, the media was calling it Superstorm Sandy when it was down by the bahamas..the NHC had this label as a hurricane and all you saw in the headlines was "Superstorm Sandy heading for the Northeast"
Earlier than that, even. FWIW, the earliest media mention I've been able to find of the term "Superstorm" in reference to Sandy was a blog post by WXIA's Mike Francis on Tuesday, October 23, when Sandy was still a weak tropical storm several hundred miles south of Jamaica:

"A super storm is a freak occurrence that merges the tropics with the northern latitudes in explosive results! a similar setup might be happening early next week in the Northeast, let's explore!

I want to make it very clear that this is just a scenario that could possibly happen and that we are still a full week away from any of these scenarios happening, but I do think that there is a chance that this may actually take shape..."
599. atris
Quoting TomballTXPride:

I like it, too. At least at the others places I blog, there is usually two sides of the story, both sides bringing commentary in and then allowing users to decide for themselves upon what to believe. Not here. Here, one is ostracized for allowing anything to be introduced into the equation that doesn't suggest man is solely changing the climate. Oh well. Just an observation.


That would be a shame , Like I said, I am rather new here and eager to come to an informed opinion and you cant come to that without hearing both sides of the story . But that is only my opinion.
Quoting Matthias1967:


Actually he should resign for misjudgement.

---

The problem with the NOAA was that they bent the rules. Tropical storm warnings are announced when tropical storm conditions (sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph) are possible within the specified area within 48 hours. Well, according to their own rules NHC should have put the whole coast from North Carolina up to Massachusetts under a tropcial storm warning on last Saturday when the storm definitely still was a hurricane. The same for hurrciane warnings. They didn't. Sandy still was full tropical when tropical storm winds reached the coast. When the radius of maximum winds reached the New Jersey and Long Island coasts Sandy was still classified full tropical. While they got predictions of intensity, track, storm surge, and other hazards pretty exactly their forecasting philosophy was big fail.

According to their pamphlet (the PDF mentioned earlier on this blog) they did this for not confusing the public when tropical storm warnings/hurricane warnings would've ceased after et transition but still nor'easter/blizzard conditions would've continued for a long time (which in the area proper btw did not happen because Sandy absorbed much of the other systems, blizzard conditions f.ex. happened only in parts of the Appalachians which anyways would't have been under hurricane/tropical storm warnings). Putting up graphics with a tropcial storm warning at the coast of North Carolina but lacking warnings for the coast north of that while Sandy was smacking down on the coast as a hurricane was a really bad, bad solution. People are looking on graphics, they're not reading advisories – some are not able to read or they don't understand terminology. Within this blog readers mostly understand the difference between hurricane winds and hurricane-force winds, the general public does not know about the difference, nor they understand the why.

Whoever was responsible for that bad judgement within NOAA should resign as well.


Sandy was a complicated situation rarely experienced in the Atlantic basin. There are complicated sets of reasoning for why the warnings and forecasts were done the way they were. That does not necessarily mean that they were the "right" call (I use quotes because that is subjective), but important discussion will likely come of this from the almost certain service assessment.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that forecasts for the strength and impacts of Sandy were particularly good in the context of how much lead time was available and how unique this situation was. Because the storm was not expected tropical, the equivalent non-tropical advisories were issued. The non-tropical equivalent products did not convey a weaker storm or weaker impacts, just the type of system. There will likely be evidence backing this up as the better call on a science basis, but maybe not on the political or social science basis. I'm not making a value judgement on either, as that will hopefully come from an objective service assessment.

Good things that can come from this... this could be yet another catalyst for re-evaluating how we treat hurricane/storm warnings. Beyond just separating impacts (surge/wind/rain), this might also suggest the need for threat-based warnings instead of storm-type-based warnings. So, for example, a storm surge warning might be issued for <5.0ft surge regardless of extratropical or tropical origin.
Quoting flsky:


That didn't help them much....
What are you talking about. The Galveston seawall saved it from IKE. Where as Gilcrest on the Bolivar Penninsula with no sea wall was essnetially washed away.
Quoting ncstorm:


No Aussie, the media was calling it Superstorm Sandy when it was down by the bahamas..the NHC had this label as a hurricane and all you saw in the headlines was "Superstorm Sandy heading for the Northeast"


I don't remember them calling it a Superstorm until after landfall. The media (TWC, CNN) were calling a hurricane.
Quoting Matthias1967:


Actually he should resign for misjudgement.

---

The problem with the NOAA was that they bent the rules. Tropical storm warnings are announced when tropical storm conditions (sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph) are possible within the specified area within 48 hours. Well, according to their own rules NHC should have put the whole coast from North Carolina up to Massachusetts under a tropcial storm warning on last Saturday when the storm definitely still was a hurricane. The same for hurrciane warnings. They didn't. Sandy still was full tropical when tropical storm winds reached the coast. When the radius of maximum winds reached the New Jersey and Long Island coasts Sandy was still classified full tropical. While they got predictions of intensity, track, storm surge, and other hazards pretty exactly their forecasting philosophy was big fail.


Disagree.

At the 2.5 to 3 day mark they weren't right at all on intensity. They were still forecasting a 60mph landfall. Instead it hit with 90mph winds, and a few millibars shy of "Normal" category 4 pressure...


Admittedly, the models have almost no refinement for forecasting storms like this, since they are so rare, so let's give them somewhat of a break here, but still, the error between the forecast intensity in the 2.5 to 3 day range compared to landfall intensity comes to 50% error if you use wind speed, or around 125% error if you use Kinetic Energy, which is to say the error in kinetic energy was actually larger than the kinetic energy equivalent of the forecast wind speed.

Put simply, the storm was over twice as destructive as forecast, which I pointed out yesterday.
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Sandy was a complicated situation rarely experienced in the Atlantic basin. There are complicated sets of reasoning for why the warnings and forecasts were done the way they were. That does not necessarily mean that they were the "right" call (I use quotes because that is subjective), but important discussion will likely come of this from the almost certain service assessment.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that forecasts for the strength and impacts of Sandy were particularly good in the context of how much lead time was available and how unique this situation was. Because the storm was not expected tropical, the equivalent non-tropical advisories were issued. The non-tropical equivalent products did not convey a weaker storm or weaker impacts, just the type of system. There will likely be evidence backing this up as the better call on a science basis, but maybe not on the political or social science basis. I'm not making a value judgement on either, as that will hopefully come from an objective service assessment.

Good things that can come from this... this could be yet another catalyst for re-evaluating how we treat hurricane/storm warnings. Beyond just separating impacts (surge/wind/rain), this might also suggest the need for threat-based warnings instead of storm-type-based warnings. So, for example, a storm surge warning might be issued for <5.0ft surge regardless of extratropical or tropical origin.
What are these "complicated sets of reasoning" that you mention? C'mon, let us in on the secret very complex and serious-minded reasoning, I think we can handle it here.
Quoting OracleDeAtlantis:
Don't go wading at Kitty Hawk ...

Looks like a little bull shark.

That could be dinner tonight!
Quoting clwstmchasr:


I don't remember them calling it a Superstorm until after landfall. The media (TWC, CNN) were calling a hurricane.


They were calling it "Frankenstorm" in the Bahamas.

It's Hurricane Sandy, any other naming is inaccurate. It's not the "Superstorm", it's not the "Perfect Storm of 2011", this was a Category 2 hurricane in the Caribbean, that went post-tropical as it made landfall in the United States. Timing with the trough giving it a more hybrid characteristic means little, as we've seen Hurricanes take on hybrid looks to them before. Even then, Sandy intensified and became much more tropical over the gulfstream, so it was defiantly tropical then the day leading up to landfall.

The damage estimates are all being counted towards Hurricane Sandy, as Sandy's extra-tropical low center is responsible. Even still, Sandy did a lot of the damage, perhaps a good 10 billion, before it even went post-tropical.

The media is calling it a "superstorm" because it sounds more intimidating than a "hurricane" (though I don't know why, we all know it was Hurricane Sandy that did it)
Quoting guygee:
What are these "complicated sets of reasoning" that you mention? C'mon, let us in on the secret very complex and serious-minded reasoning, I think we can handle it here.

Dunno. That had congaline written all over it. You know the poster from the other day.
Quoting RTSplayer:

Disagree.
At the 2.5 to 3 day mark they weren't right at all on intensity. They were still forecasting a 60mph landfall. Instead it hit with 90mph winds, and a few millibars shy of "Normal" category 4 pressure...


Admittedly, the models have almost no refinement for forecasting storms like this, since they are so rare, so let's give them somewhat of a break here, but still, the error between the forecast intensity in the 2.5 to 3 day range compared to landfall intensity comes to 50% error if you use wind speed, or around 125% error if you use Kinetic Energy, which is to say the error in kinetic energy was actually larger than the kinetic energy equivalent of the forecast wind speed.

Put simply, the storm was over twice as destructive as forecast, which I pointed out yesterday.
Based on how difficult it is to forecast intensity and the past track record of forecasting intensity, I would venture that this forecast was better than average. Has anyone actually crunched the numbers on that?
Quoting ge2655:
I%u2019m afraid it is going to get very ugly in many areas of the northeast very soon. There are too many people that have become %u2018dependant%u2019 on %u2018receiving%u2019 and not earning. When the %u2018entitlement%u2019 faucet does not flow at a normal rate, patience will not be practiced and the %u2018have-nots%u2019 may begin to prey on the %u2018haves%u2019. God, I hope I%u2019m wrong but I just have a bad feeling about this.

-Gary


I've watched the NE clean up in a season that had 11 major Nor'Easters. We love our public works folks who plow the highways and our fleets of private plow guys can get six million people dug out in a day - two if things are bad.

Public vs private in a disaster is a false choice. We need the Natl Guard and NOAA. We need the Red Cross shelters - and we need our plow guys and chain saw jockeys.

Come up and visit some time. Bring a long coat, a good pair of boots, and a shovel.

Quoting jskweather:
What are you talking about. The Galveston seawall saved it from IKE. Where as Gilcrest on the Bolivar Penninsula with no sea wall was essnetially washed away.
So let's build a nice seawall along the ATL coast and place wind turbines all along it... win win!
I still back the NHC decision. No hurricane Warning was needed because Hurricanes don't contain snow & snow was falling at landfall in parts of the W & SW of the storm. We've seen winter storms get over the gulf stream & briefly go warm core but while they are producing snow on the farther reaches they are still a winter storm...we don't suddenly call them a hurricane.

The fact it was snowing at landfall should rightly save alot of people from paying hurricane deductibles.

Anyone making a claim should review their policy & note all expenses. I've been reimbursed for things as petty as food spoilage & a computer power supply.
Quoting CybrTeddy:


They were calling it "Frankenstorm" in the Bahamas.
[...]
The damage estimates are all being counted towards Hurricane Sandy, as Sandy's extra-tropical low center is responsible. Even still, Sandy did a lot of the damage, perhaps a good 10 billion, before it even went post-tropical.

[...]
I guess if the NHC pronounces a storm 'extra-tropical', then it is de facto extra-tropical regardless of the scientific data. End of story.
I am done.
Quoting JNCali:
Al Gore/Joe Biden 2016!

GOT MY VOTE.

LOL
Snndy's death toll is almost 100.So far it stands at 70 and let's hope that doesn't go up.In total Sandy has already killed 130 people.
No hurricane warning was needed because it wasn't expected to be a hurricane at landfall. This was accurate. However, hurricane force winds were experienced by many people before it made landfall and while it was tropical.

It matters little though, because the message was communicated the same, and the media helped hype it up. One of the rare times an event almost lives up to media hype.
Oil spill off storm-battered New York: Shell
AFP
November 02, 2012 12:28AM

US oil company Shell has confirmed superstorm Sandy triggered an oil spill in the waters off New York City, without specifying an amount, saying clean up efforts were underway.

A news report said 300,00 gallons of diesel fuel spilled.

"At least two diesel storage tanks were damaged and an unknown quantity of product was released," the company said in a statement.

The storage tanks were at a Sewaren, New Jersey refinery part-owned by Shell and run by Motiva.

"No injuries have occurred and there has been no further product released since the initial event."

"Previously deployed booms are continuing to skim released product in the Woodbridge creek adjacent to the site. Motiva and public emergency responders are onsite assessing the situation."

CNN reported that some 300,000 gallons of diesel fuel had spilled, saying the US Coast Guard was overseeing the cleanup effort.

The Coast Guard was not immediately available for comment.

The massive storm carved a path of devastation across the US northeast on Monday and Tuesday, flooding lower Manhattan and much of the New Jersey coastline and leaving millions without electricity across several states.
Quoting Skyepony:
I still back the NHC decision. No hurricane Warning was needed because Hurricanes don't contain snow & snow was falling at landfall in parts of the W & SW of the storm. We've seen winter storms get over the gulf stream & briefly go warm core but while they are producing snow on the farther reaches they are still a winter storm...we don't suddenly call them a hurricane.

The fact it was snowing at landfall should rightly save alot of people from paying hurricane deductibles.

Anyone making a claim should review their policy & note all expenses. I've been reimbursed for things as petty as food spoilage & a computer power supply.


So the Great White Hurricane was really what?

Lots of hurricanes have snow.


Quoting guygee:
I guess if the NHC pronounces a storm 'extra-tropical', then it is de facto extra-tropical regardless of the scientific data. End of story.
I am done.
it was post tropical guygee it was a cane on approach transistion occur just prior to landfall and as landfall occur after landfall it was a deep nor'easter type event with heavy rain snow surge the surge came after inland crossing occur as the sea tried to follow the storm inland
Quoting Skyepony:
I still back the NHC decision. No hurricane Warning was needed because Hurricanes don't contain snow & snow was falling at landfall in parts of the W & SW of the storm. We've seen winter storms get over the gulf stream & briefly go warm core but while they are producing snow on the farther reaches they are still a winter storm...we don't suddenly call them a hurricane.

The fact it was snowing at landfall should rightly save alot of people from paying hurricane deductibles.

Anyone making a claim should review their policy & note all expenses. I've been reimbursed for things as petty as food spoilage & a computer power supply.
I don't think that is in the definition of "hurricane", Skye: "A hurricane must not cause snow". I have never heard of that one. A quick google brings up things like Snow Hurricane of 1804. Sure, a late season hurricane coming up the east coast can cause snow on its fringes and still be a tropical system out at sea.

But you are right at least people up north won't be paying those hurricane deductibles. Good for them. I am out.
Quoting washingtonian115:
Snndy's death toll is almost 100.So far it stands at 70 and let's hope that doesn't go up.In total Sandy has already killed 130 people.


Hey Washi...I haven't been on much ..busy at work. Glad to see you here
Quoting TomballTXPride:

I like it, too. At least at the others places I blog, there is usually two sides of the story, both sides bringing commentary in and then allowing users to decide for themselves upon what to believe. Not here. Here, one is ostracized for allowing anything to be introduced into the equation that doesn't suggest man is solely changing the climate. Oh well. Just an observation.
Science isn't a matter of opinion or belief. It's not like religion, where people can hear "both sides" and then make up their minds based on what they think works best for them. No, science is based on empirical research--and that research quite clearly demonstrates both that the climate is rapidly changing and that it's doing so primarily (if not mostly) because of our burning of fossil fuels. No one is "ostracized" here for implying otherwise, but they are repeatedly challenged to provide scientific evidence to support the things they say, and they are often ridiculed for repeatedly failing to provide it.

There may be "two sides" to the climate change issue--but, scientifically-speaking, only one of those sides is correct. The other side is just talking nonsense.

(NOTE: I am not saying there are no honest skeptics--but those honest skeptics only disagree about the amount of warming, not whether it's happening.)
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
it was post tropical guygee it was a cane on approach transistion occur just prior to landfall and as landfall occur after landfall it was a deep nor'easter type event with heavy rain snow surge the surge came after inland crossing occur as the sea tried to follow the storm
Fact- the last vortex message still showed a deep warm core.

I am sure there will be another time to discuss this but I gotta go now.
Quoting guygee:
Fact- the last vortex message still showed a deep warm core.

I am sure there will be another time to discuss this but I gotta go now.


Fact~ It had completely been front smacked by landfall..it was certainly frontal in nature by that point (pointed that out with phase diagram at the time) or it wouldn't have been snowing. I would fully agree if the front hadn't been pulled it to it by that point. We have to consider the whole huge storm, not just the center.
Quoting guygee:
I watched closely and posted graphics as Sandy passed over the Gulf Stream for the last time, with a deep warm core and convection strengthening directly over the center. That was fully tropical intensification near the center. The NHC should have never declared her extratropical so close to landfall in the first place, because she was obviously still some kind of hybrid storm. On top of that you are absolutely correct in your observation that there should have been TS and Hurricane watches and warnings all the way up the east coast as per the NHC's own policies.
I agree with you that the storm was tropical but they made their decision on how it would be handled long before. Their forecast was for it to transition long before landfall. What if they would have posted those watches and warnings and the storm did transition and follow their forecast? Would they then pull them down? Would that not give people a false sense of being in the clear? They explained their reasoning and made a decission and stuck with it. They also where all over the media explaining the probable impacts of the storm and the fact that that there will be surge and lots of it no matter how the storm will be classified. Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
The Barometer Bob Show for November 1, 2012.
This weeks show will be massive with a review of Hurricane/Superstorm/Frankenstorm Sandy. The guest will be Rick Schwartz, author of Hurricanes and the Middle Atlantic States.
We will discuss "Hurricane" Sandy and it's impact on the Mid Atlantic and New England. Could this storm have been better warned? Are we more responsible for the safety of lives then history or records? Listen Live and Please share your views in StormChat.

The Barometer Bob Show airs live every Thursday night at 8PM/ET.

With your host, Robert Brookens, the Barometer Bob Show has been a weekly weather related Internet program since May of 2001. It is the only weather related Internet broadcast that has been the recipient of a number of awards and recognition's.

There have been many notable guests (including Dr Masters), and topics over the years. So join us every Thursday night at 8PM/ET on the Weather Radio Broadcast Network.



Good night all.
627. DFWjc
So this guy I work with has been going on an on about a lady who posted a youtube video about chemtrails and chembombs that made Hurricane Sandy go North as supposed to curving out to sea. I told him he's nuts but he linked me to it Link Could someone please explain what these are, I told him there's no was anyone can move a system as big as Sandy was. TIA
Quoting Skyepony:


Fact~ It had completely been front smacked by landfall..it was certainly frontal in nature by that point (pointed that out with phase diagram at the time) or it wouldn't have been snowing. I would fully agree if the front hadn't been pulled it to it by that point. We have to consider the whole huge storm, not just the center.


Fact - The snow was a result of the cold air and would have occured whether or not this storm was tropical or not. Proves neither your nor his point.
First off, my heart goes out to the millions affected by this storm, and I love you, Governor Christie!

Quoting guygee:
Fact- the last vortex message still showed a deep warm core.

I am sure there will be another time to discuss this but I gotta go now.
The last vortex message I saw showed no temp difference inside and outside a N/A eye.

Skye,
I agree with you. I don't see how NWS could have put this any better. Perhaps local media did not pick up and disseminate. This was issued by Mt Holly, NJ office on Sunday at 2:?? pm EDT.

SANDY IS EXPECTED TO SLAM INTO THE NEW JERSEY COAST LATER MONDAY NIGHT, BRINGING VERY HEAVY RAIN AND DAMAGING WINDS TO THE REGION.

THE STORM IS A LARGE ONE, THEREFORE DO NOT FOCUS ON THE EXACT CENTER OF THE STORM AS ALL AREAS WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.

THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE AN HISTORIC STORM, WITH WIDESPREAD WIND DAMAGE AND POWER OUTAGES, INLAND AND COASTAL FLOODING, AND MASSIVE BEACH EROSION. THE COMBINATION OF THE HEAVY RAIN AND PROLONGED WIND WILL CREATE THE POTENTIAL FOR LONG LASTING POWER OUTAGES AND SERIOUS FLOODING.

PREPARATIONS SHOULD BE WRAPPING UP AS CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED TO WORSEN TONIGHT AND ESPECIALLY ON MONDAY.

SOME IMPORTANT NOTES...

1. IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO EVACUATE A COASTAL LOCATION BY STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, PLEASE DO SO.

2. IF YOU ARE RELUCTANT TO EVACUATE, AND YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO RODE OUT THE `62 STORM ON THE BARRIER ISLANDS, ASK THEM IF THEY COULD DO IT AGAIN.

3. IF YOU ARE RELUCTANT, THINK ABOUT YOUR LOVED ONES, THINK ABOUT THE EMERGENCY RESPONDERS WHO WILL BE UNABLE TO REACH YOU WHEN YOU MAKE THE PANICKED PHONE CALL TO BE RESCUED, THINK ABOUT THE RESCUE/RECOVERY TEAMS WHO WILL RESCUE YOU IF YOU ARE INJURED OR RECOVER YOUR REMAINS IF YOU DO NOT SURVIVE.

4. SANDY IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS STORM. THERE WILL BE MAJOR PROPERTY DAMAGE, INJURIES ARE PROBABLY UNAVOIDABLE, BUT THE GOAL IS ZERO FATALITIES.

5. IF YOU THINK THE STORM IS OVER-HYPED AND EXAGGERATED, PLEASE ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

WE WISH EVERYONE IN HARMS WAY ALL THE BEST. STAY SAFE!

No doubt all this will be looked at. From the TV interviews I've seen, some of the public and perhaps private sector business and institutions just did not believe anything like this could happen. Kinda the same thing that studies of survivors in Joplin and Alabama 2011 tornadoes found. People just don't want to believe it can happen to them. Not knocking that point of view. It's very human and, in a way, optimistic. Because of this aspect, I don't think calling it a hurricane would have made any difference.

There will be those who (maybe already but I have not seen it) criticize the surge forecast forecast for NY and NJ even though it could not have been much better. Just boils down to people not wanting to believe it's gonna happen to them.


I thought it was very strange the NHC would indicated a hurricane over NJ/Delaware/S. Pennsylvania and not have any hurricane/tropical storm warnings anywhere but Cape Hatteras and Bermuda.

I don't think there was any ulterior motives but I did think it was unusual and still do.
Quoting StormPro:


Hey Washi...I haven't been on much ..busy at work. Glad to see you here
Hey stormpro I haven't been on much either because since Sandy has moved out of the pIcture the blog has gone down hill.I've also had to do some clean up around my house.
Do NorEasters make landfall days after the weather has arrived? What did people think was comming ashore, a double-spiral shaped gust front?

If you didn't post a hurricane warning on the gulf coast because it was extratropical, we would be confused by a strong wind advisory. Is the same true for an area that hasn't lived through a hurricane that has not been over land for several days?

90mph wind and life threatening/record breaking/subway flooding storm surge warnings sounds very comprehensible to me.

I saw maps showing areas that should expect storm surge. Were those not shown on local news stations?

P.S. I know that I and my family have been spoiled for years since we get info from here that is hot off the press 24/7 in the comments section. I don't know what other people see or don't see.
Quoting Matthias1967:


Actually he should resign for misjudgement.

---

The problem with the NOAA was that they bent the rules. Tropical storm warnings are announced when tropical storm conditions (sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph) are possible within the specified area within 48 hours. Well, according to their own rules NHC should have put the whole coast from North Carolina up to Massachusetts under a tropcial storm warning on last Saturday when the storm definitely still was a hurricane. The same for hurrciane warnings. They didn't. Sandy still was full tropical when tropical storm winds reached the coast. When the radius of maximum winds reached the New Jersey and Long Island coasts Sandy was still classified full tropical. While they got predictions of intensity, track, storm surge, and other hazards pretty exactly their forecasting philosophy was big fail.

According to their pamphlet (the PDF mentioned earlier on this blog) they did this for not confusing the public when tropical storm warnings/hurricane warnings would've ceased after et transition but still nor'easter/blizzard conditions would've continued for a long time (which in the area proper btw did not happen because Sandy absorbed much of the other systems, blizzard conditions f.ex. happened only in parts of the Appalachians which anyways would't have been under hurricane/tropical storm warnings). Putting up graphics with a tropcial storm warning at the coast of North Carolina but lacking warnings for the coast north of that while Sandy was smacking down on the coast as a hurricane was a really bad, bad solution. People are looking on graphics, they're not reading advisories – some are not able to read or they don't understand terminology. Within this blog readers mostly understand the difference between hurricane winds and hurricane-force winds, the general public does not know about the difference, nor they understand the why.

Whoever was responsible for that bad judgement within NOAA should resign as well.


NHC did not bend their rules, it is up to the discretion of the Hurricane Specialist:

"If tropical storm force winds directly associated with a tropical cyclone are expected to affect an area for which a gale warning is already in place, a tropical storm warning may be issued, replacing the gale warning, at the discretion of the hurricane specialist after coordinating with the impacted WFO(s)."

1.1.3.3
Quoting islander101010:
there was plenty warning gave by nhc people bloomberg included just did not believe it would occur. seems like we have had a few storms of recent irene isacc and now sandy the have deep low pressure yet lacked the winds. might need to revamp how these storms are measured.
so bloomberg is a downcaster?
or a fish caster?
GFS showing a small amount of snow with this in the NE, nothing noteworthy at this time, note the blocking high above it, but no low to pull it in so it goes out to sea quickly


Quoting DFWjc:
So this guy I work with has been going on an on about a lady who posted a youtube video about chemtrails and chembombs that made Hurricane Sandy go North as supposed to curving out to sea. I told him he's nuts but he linked me to it Link Could someone please explain what these are, I told him there's no was anyone can move a system as big as Sandy was. TIA

It is tin foil hat conspiracy theory territory. Don't try to understand it, because it doesn't make any logical sense.
It's that time of year again. sigh.

That time when the GFS trolls GA with long range snow forecasts that will never materialize, and consistently does so all winter.
If Georgian's believed the November to February GFS outputs, snow would always be 2 weeks away.....sigh.
All winter last year we were predicted to get snow withing 3 weeks and we never got a flake.
It will NEVER snow before Christmas.

Quoting DFWjc:
So this guy I work with has been going on an on about a lady who posted a youtube video about chemtrails and chembombs that made Hurricane Sandy go North as supposed to curving out to sea. I told him he's nuts but he linked me to it Link Could someone please explain what these are, I told him there's no was anyone can move a system as big as Sandy was. TIA


Just like in the movie Billy Madison, we are all dumber now from watching that video link. I would like to know what she is smoking however.
Quoting CybrTeddy:
No hurricane warning was needed because it wasn't expected to be a hurricane at landfall. This was accurate. However, hurricane force winds were experienced by many people before it made landfall and while it was tropical.

It matters little though, because the message was communicated the same, and the media helped hype it up. One of the rare times an event almost lives up to media hype.
Mornin Ted...Nothin like a huge Nor,Easter grabbing and slamming a large hurricane into the coast. Whether it was tropical or not damage was done. Sandy reminded me of Hurricane Hazel in 1954..If anyone has time to read about this monster that killed over a 1000 people from the Caribbean to Canada.. here is the link..Link
Quoting Econundertow:


I thought it was very strange the NHC would indicated a hurricane over NJ/Delaware/S. Pennsylvania and not have any hurricane/tropical storm warnings anywhere but Cape Hatteras and Bermuda.

I don't think there was any ulterior motives but I did think it was unusual and still do.
Unusual, yes. Was an unusual storm.

NHC explained over and over in their storm discussions that they were not issuing tropical watches and warnings, that local NWS offices would (add: issue appropriate warnings). On Sunday (maybe Saturday) right at the top of their main Sandy page, NHC linked to the Eastern Region NWS in big red letters that indicated watches and warnings could be found at the link. Anyone savvy enough to seek out the NHC site for info could not have missed it. If anything, perhaps sites like this one that regurgitate the NHC cone could have done a better job of indicating why the warning stopped at NC and where further warnings could be found.
I think the NHC should have continued issuing warning, originally Sandy was supposed to transition but it should have been evident as it was turning back towards the coast that she might not. Besides the NHC wind field while Sandy was still a tropical cyclone showed large swaths of coastline under tropical storm force winds, but despite ts force winds from a tropical cyclone they didn't issue a warning? Also why did they have to hand over the warnings could they have doubled up? When there is a strong thunderstorm approaching I usually see a list of several types of watches and warnings that I assume the public doesn't look at too closely. So when the worst storm to hit the US since Ike is barreling towards NYC why not add Hurricane Warning to the list of other warnings? maybe that would have helped the message get across. I think its ridiculous that they just assumed it would be extropical at the time and therefore wasn't their division.
My two cents, feel free to disagree
Morning Hydrus, was reading about that earlier today actually. Hazel does remind me of Sandy.
LOLOLOLOL

GFS blizzard for central US:

A foot of snow:


And a cold front that clases with 50-70F air and no instability to produce:


Rain rain rain.
Gotta love these funny long range GFS runs.
Arctic sea ice fluctuations are not drastic enough to cause that kind of anomaly in the jet stream. Further, the Arctic sea ice goes above and below average, depending on your snapshot and what climatologists you are going to pay attention to. Man-made global warming is a media-created, political agenda-driven falsehood.

Meteorologists can't even get forecasts accurate most of the time without having to change them within a 24-hour period even with all the technology we have today, much less make claims of global warming cycles being man-made as opposed to natural, and be accurate. The most accurate tool we have is the satellite, and they did not really ramp up for climate study until 1979. What did we use for data before then? Not much, and much of it was subjective observation, not raw data.

Thanks for allowing me my viewpoint.

stratcat
Quoting clwstmchasr:


I don't remember them calling it a Superstorm until after landfall. The media (TWC, CNN) were calling a hurricane.
That is correct. The min. it came on shore they started calling it a superstorm.
648. DFWjc
Quoting Chucktown:


Just like in the movie Billy Madison, we are all dumber now from watching that video link. I would like to know what she is smoking however.


Agreed, I know I don't know half as much as some of the people on here, but come on, even just by listening to her it's just another scare tactic.
Quoting CybrTeddy:
No hurricane warning was needed because it wasn't expected to be a hurricane at landfall. This was accurate. However, hurricane force winds were experienced by many people before it made landfall and while it was tropical.



Can you point to a source that indicates 1-min sustained winds over land of 74 mph? I've seen plenty of GUSTS over 74, but as we all know, gusts do not a hurricane make.

But it does sound like TS warning should have been in place. would anyone have complained if they "made-up" a post-tropical storm warning on the spot???
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Unusual, yes. Was an unusual storm.

NHC explained over and over in their storm discussions that they were not issuing tropical watches and warnings, that local NWS offices would (add: issue appropriate warnings). On Sunday (maybe Saturday) right at the top of their main Sandy page, NHC linked to the Eastern Region NWS in big red letters that indicated watches and warnings could be found at the link. Anyone savvy enough to seek out the NHC site for info could not have missed it. If anything, perhaps sites like this one that regurgitate the NHC cone could have done a better job of indicating why the warning stopped at NC and where further warnings could be found.
your 100% right on this, it was the NWS that should and would give out the warnings, saw the message numerous times before sandy hit
Whoever was responsible for that bad judgement within NOAA should resign as well.

Consider the public confusion that would have occurred if widespread east coast hurricane/tropical storm watches or warnings were issued and then got canceled because Sandy transitioned earlier than it did. No question NOAA/NWS made the right call.
Quoting zschmiez:


Can you point to a source that indicates 1-min sustained winds over land of 74 mph? I've seen plenty of GUSTS over 74, but as we all know, gusts do not a hurricane make.

But it does sound like TS warning should have been in place. would anyone have complained if they "made-up" a post-tropical storm warning on the spot???


I can give you SFMR readings that occurred as the storm made landfall, as we can't expect there to be data for the storm over the entire area. A lot of them may have lost power, for example.
Quoting Econundertow:


I thought it was very strange the NHC would indicated a hurricane over NJ/Delaware/S. Pennsylvania and not have any hurricane/tropical storm warnings anywhere but Cape Hatteras and Bermuda.

I don't think there was any ulterior motives but I did think it was unusual and still do.
not strange at all, the H over land in white, meaning non tropical..all NON tropical storms are handled by the NWS
As a layperson in the NE, I can't see what could possibly have been done differently or better if we had received full-on hurricane warnings.

First, many around here (I'm in MA) regard hurricanes as something of a joke, because so many dire predictions have fizzled out. The worst effects of Irene in New England came from rainfall, and Sandy was known not to be much of a rainmaker in the Northeast. So hurricane warnings would have been met with a few eye-rolls.

Second, most people expect hurricanes to have fairly tight windfields. Upon learning Sandy would land in NJ rather than CT or Long Island, many people assumed we would receive almost nothing of note. The local mets really had to strain their voices to convince people that this was not a normal, tight hurricane.

All that said, despite the hype and warnings I still believe that it was hard to understand what we were in for. I saw very different windspeed predictions on the local news vs. here in the commnts vs. an interactive tool on the Boston Globe's website that promised no more than 30 mph winds per the NWS in my town. The windspeed probability cone also understated the damage. Part of the problem is that there was no similar storm in recent memory that anybody could compare Sandy to, so it was hard to visualize its strength. However, I'd also say that the TV mets spent an awful lot of airtime harping on the meteorological uniqueness of the storm, and some of that time would probably had better been spent giving more specific examples of potential threats by locality.

Nobody I know expected to turn on the TV and see photos of Katrina-like destruction on the Jersey Shore, and I don't think a simple Cat 1 Hurricane warning would have cured that.
Things are progressing. Shock, denial, anger, whining ...
Quoting biff4ugo:
Do NorEasters make landfall days after the weather has arrived? What did people think was comming ashore, a double-spiral shaped gust front?

If you didn't post a hurricane warning on the gulf coast because it was extratropical, we would be confused by a strong wind advisory. Is the same true for an area that hasn't lived through a hurricane that has not been over land for several days?

90mph wind and life threatening/record breaking/subway flooding storm surge warnings sounds very comprehensible to me.

I saw maps showing areas that should expect storm surge. Were those not shown on local news stations?

P.S. I know that I and my family have been spoiled for years since we get info from here that is hot off the press 24/7 in the comments section. I don't know what other people see or don't see.


A lot of people don't watch the weather until AFTER they learn something is happening. This was supposedly a contributing factor to Katrina's loss of life and other issues*.

You have to remember people on this blog follow storms when they are nothing more than a ghost in the global model's 14 day forecast, so they know "something" is happened in the middle of Africa days or even a week before it hits water.

Not all people don't do that. If they're at a party or a sporting event when the warning is given, you might not actually learn about it until 8 to 12 or more hours later, because you might go straight home and go to sleep, for example, without checking the news or weather.

I figure this really only covers a couple percent of people, but it only takes less than one percent to explain all of Katrina's casualties.



I think in the case of levees and sea walls, including the ones Sandy has broken, the public needs to be aware that these safety structures are not "infallible". they are designed as a best effort or at least a decent effort to protect life and property, but I think everyone should leave anyway, even if the levee or sea wall is supposedly coded for the type of storm that is coming, because you just never know what might happen.


If everyone leaves NOLA by August 28, then Katrina's total death toll would have been around 400, instead of nearly 2000.


Now you can't do anything with people who don't listen. That's part of our "rights" in this country. You have a "right" to be irresponsible and get yourself killed, if that's what you choose, but you don't have a right to be irresponsible and get your children killed, for example, and that should be put forward as an enforcement mechanism for mandatory evacuations. So to me, it should be illegal for adults to stay behind with their children, but if a man wants to stay behind to protect his property from potential looters, fine, but they should be legally required to send the children away with the wife or some other relative.

The point of all of this is that some problems in human decision making can't be legislated away, even when the "ideal" seems straightforward.


I figure most of the deaths directly caused by Sandy were avoidable, except perhaps any heart attacks caused by elevated stress. Most of the "secondary deaths' caused during preparations and cleanup are also avoidable.

People without professional logging or tree care experience should not try to cut down partially felled trees, because they don't know what they're doing. The tree can kick back, roll, or other effects and either fall on them, or the saw kicks back and cuts them, etc. It's just not worth it, and yet this same drama gets played out over and over every time a major storm hits. Often these post-storm cleanup accidents actually cause more injuries and deaths than the storm itself, in spite of safety warnings.
Quoting CybrTeddy:


I can give you SFMR readings that occurred as the storm made landfall, as we can't expect there to be data for the storm over the entire area. A lot of them may have lost power, for example.
I was wondering how many structures with anemometers went down before the actual landfall of Sandy. ..Would have been nice to have those readings..
Quoting Autistic2:
This is for GRO in post 391

https://www.citizensfla.com/about/CitizensAssessm ents.cfm

Last year citizens assessed my car ins 3% boat ins 3% home owners 3% All three are assessed against my property tax. Only because it is a state agency can the levy an assessment on the auto and boat on my POPERTY tax. This means if I don't pay it they won't cancel my insurance with allstate as I paid that. They will just take my house for not paying my property tax.

A scam a private company could never get away with.

Everyone in the state with any kind of insurance is assessed something by citizens and the amount is totally up to them (to a point)


Autistic, first, thank you for the link. It was interesting. However, if you read the article carefully, it is an assessment which clearly states the different assessments which may be levied if there is a deficit. It is a common practice with all insurance companies.

This is something which will affect us all on this blog. Almost all insured people in the state of Florida are still currently paying and assessment charge for the hurricanes in 2005 on their policies, regardless of who underwrites them.

I am not an insurance expert, but it is quite conceivable that people in other states NOT in the areas of the NE, may be assessed a surcharge for the deficits in the disaster areas. If anyone in Florida looks at their policies closely, the section of "Mandatory Additional charges", includes 2005 Catastrophic Emergency Assessment 2007 Guarantee
Assessment and a number of others.

IF..you did not prepare, if you didnt leave when asked, its NOT the NHC's fault period..for days and days the NHC said..a very dangerous storm was coming and even some here said it was all hype huh...well BOOM came the wake up call..next time..listen and prepare..simple as that like we do here along the gulf coast..if your a mile or more away from the water..its not far enough..leave..no more needs to be said..it is UP to EACH person..to make his/her own choices in a situation like this..not the NHC or the government..its up to YOU every time
anyway..a few showers might be headed our way..good.....
Quoting zschmiez:


Can you point to a source that indicates 1-min sustained winds over land of 74 mph? I've seen plenty of GUSTS over 74, but as we all know, gusts do not a hurricane make.

But it does sound like TS warning should have been in place. would anyone have complained if they "made-up" a post-tropical storm warning on the spot???
it was NOT even a tropical storm..it was a cold noreaster, very strong and powerful yes..but NOT..tropical in nature..why keep going on this
15 UTC map of October 1954 showing Hurricane Hazel and the meteorological set-up.
I don't see what the discussion about the NHC choices was.
Things were set into motion that could not be undone.

They made a decision. The warnings about the system were still disseminated, and frankly, its a coin toss as to whether hurricane warnings or high wind warnings were necessary....but either way, does it really matter?
Quoting LostTomorrows:


I made that type of comment many blogs ago, and your thinking is about the same as mine.
Why no comment on Nadine? Haha.


Why are people still b****'in about the NHC's decision?.I'm really annoyed get over it all ready that was days ago and Sandy has moved on.
7-day for the Tampa Bay area.................
Quoting DFWjc:
So this guy I work with has been going on an on about a lady who posted a youtube video about chemtrails and chembombs that made Hurricane Sandy go North as supposed to curving out to sea. I told him he's nuts but he linked me to it Link Could someone please explain what these are, I told him there's no was anyone can move a system as big as Sandy was. TIA
please don't add to the retardation. The people who believe this are crazy.
Im confused,why does it matter whether there were tropical storm warnings,hurricane warnings or high wind warnings,they had been broadcasting the wind speeds 50-70 mph with gusts possibly 90-100.Isn't that all you need to know?Those wind speeds tell me all I need to know to prepare.
Quoting jskweather:
What are you talking about. The Galveston seawall saved it from IKE. Where as Gilcrest on the Bolivar Penninsula with no sea wall was essnetially washed away.


not really, the fact that Ike came in to the north of Galveston had everything to do with the low death count. Had it come in 25-30 miles south, Galveston, and all the folks that listened to their Mayor would likely be dead.
just what they need more rain and wind..GFS at 48 hours..
Quoting LargoFl:
IF..you did not prepare, if you didnt leave when asked, its NOT the NHC's fault period..for days and days the NHC said..a very dangerous storm was coming and even some here said it was all hype huh...well BOOM came the wake up call..next time..listen and prepare..simple as that like we do here along the gulf coast..if your a mile or more away from the water..its not far enough..leave..no more needs to be said..it is UP to EACH person..to make his/her own choices in a situation like this..not the NHC or the government..its up to YOU every time
well said.
Quoting NEwxguy:
Im confused,why does it matter whether there were tropical storm warnings,hurricane warnings or high wind warnings,they had been broadcasting the wind speeds 50-70 mph with gusts possibly 90-100.Isn't that all you need to know?Those wind speeds tell me all I need to know to prepare.


There is a belief that the general public will take seriously a hurricane warning versus a gale warning, this is somewhat validated by NHC's own actions. They were concerned that the forecast was for post tropical prior to landfall and the removing of hurricane/tropical storm warnings would lead people to not take the storm seriously.
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
I don't see what the discussion about the NHC choices was.
Things were set into motion that could not be undone.

They made a decision. The warnings about the system were still disseminated, and frankly, its a coin toss as to whether hurricane warnings or high wind warnings were necessary....but either way, does it really matter?


I think it matters in insurance deductables is what I understand..
And they were waved by at least one state..NY..
It would mean alot alot to me if they were waved here in Florida after such an event..
Not trying to disagree with you just putting it out there for discussion.. :)
wow Northwestern Canada..start preparing..another Monster storm up there...........................................
Quoting BosGuy:
As a layperson in the NE, I can't see what could possibly have been done differently or better if we had received full-on hurricane warnings.

First, many around here (I'm in MA) regard hurricanes as something of a joke, because so many dire predictions have fizzled out. The worst effects of Irene in New England came from rainfall, and Sandy was known not to be much of a rainmaker in the Northeast. So hurricane warnings would have been met with a few eye-rolls.


Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast.

You guys don't get monster storms very often up there, so you aren't used to being directly impacted by these sort of "everybody take cover or run just in case" type situations.

Katrina and Rita were both like this, because the storms were so strong, and the forecasters weren't sure where they were going, so a LOT of people evacuated in areas that didn't actually end up with a "life or limb" threat, even as others, overconfident in their location or man-made protections, stayed behind. Unfortunately, because of an accident in evacuations for Rita, there were about as many evacuation deaths as their were storm deaths.


I don't expect these problems to go away until size, intensity, and track forecasts improve significantly more beyond today's techniques. At the rate of improvement over the past 20 years or so, I think it will take another 20 years to cut this over/under-prepare "eye roll" problem in half.


Second, most people expect hurricanes to have fairly tight windfields. Upon learning Sandy would land in NJ rather than CT or Long Island, many people assumed we would receive almost nothing of note. The local mets really had to strain their voices to convince people that this was not a normal, tight hurricane.

All that said, despite the hype and warnings I still believe that it was hard to understand what we were in for. I saw very different windspeed predictions on the local news vs. here in the commnts vs. an interactive tool on the Boston Globe's website that promised no more than 30 mph winds per the NWS in my town.


To be honest with you, between Dr. Masters and the "forum consensus," this site is almost always going to beat your local mets in predicting the intensity, because you have many lifetimes worth of experience watching them, and people here aren't limited by political agenda.

I was not here for this storm, but people here, including myself, will tell you where they think a storm is going and why, and how strong they expect it to be for various areas, and why, because we care about the human life and property aspect, and we care about the scientific aspect. Unfortunately, news and government agencies are sometimes compromised by the politics or "paper economics" of the situation.


The windspeed probability cone also understated the damage. Part of the problem is that there was no similar storm in recent memory that anybody could compare Sandy to, so it was hard to visualize its strength.


This is a flaw in the SS hurricane wind scale which has always existed, it turns out it's actually horrible at predicting both the wind damage and storm surge aspects of large storms.

This season is as good a reason as any, because of Isaac and Sandy, for some more evaluations to be put into alternative ranking or warning systems to better inform the public.

However, I'd also say that the TV mets spent an awful lot of airtime harping on the meteorological uniqueness of the storm, and some of that time would probably had better been spent giving more specific examples of potential threats by locality.

Nobody I know expected to turn on the TV and see photos of Katrina-like destruction on the Jersey Shore, and I don't think a simple Cat 1 Hurricane warning would have cured that.



No, a simple Cat 1 hurricane warning would not have cured it, because it caused a category 3 equivalent storm surge, and had a typical category 3 (~125mph) equivalent low pressure.


Therefore, it should have been warned as a category 3 equivalent storm.

Another reason some sort of two-tiered ranking system, like the split system that was never used properly from the OLD SS scale, needs to be emplimented for larger storms.
Quoting indianrivguy:


not really, the fact that Ike came in to the north of Galveston had everything to do with the low death count. Had it come in 25-30 miles south, Galveston, and all the folks that listened to their Mayor would likely be dead.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and think this statement is very valid. Although I would even put him 35-40 miles further south for Galveston and the barrier island it is built on to feel the biggest effects.

Long way out, but interesting...
Quoting nrtiwlnvragn:


There is a belief that the general public will take seriously a hurricane warning versus a gale warning, this is somewhat validated by NHC's own actions. They were concerned that the forecast was for post tropical prior to landfall and the removing of hurricane/tropical storm warnings would lead people to not take the storm seriously.
and if those idiots don't prepare or pay attention it's their fault no one else's. this is the whiny titty baby theory we need to hold people's hands through everything a fundamental flaw in today's society.
Quoting washingtonian115:
Why are people still b****'in about the NHC's decision?.I'm really annoyed get over it all ready that was days ago and Sandy has moved on.


hmmm, a lot of folks here were worried about you, and the first post you make upon your return was to slam "warmists" whatever the hell they are. You slammed those who cared about you, folks that didn't care about anything else but the safety of you and yours. So honestly, your "annoyance" level doesn't really concern me anymore.
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
I don't see what the discussion about the NHC choices was.
Things were set into motion that could not be undone.

They made a decision. The warnings about the system were still disseminated, and frankly, its a coin toss as to whether hurricane warnings or high wind warnings were necessary....but either way, does it really matter?

It doesn't matter is right. The storm would have done the exact same thing regardless of what artificial man-made designations were given to it. Mother Nature does not answer nor revolve around us.

Hindsight is 20/20. This debate will go on for years to come, unfortunately.
@Grothar re: insurance

Well, for homeowners, all rate changes must be filed with each states insurance regulator. There must also be justification in those rates (performance, new science, etc...). So a policy in Illinois wont pay for NJ losses. Companies cant simply pass the buck. A little easier to do for commercial policies. But companies risk not being competitive.

And most states that are not coastal, rarely allow rate increases more than a few % points. 2011 T-storm season had more affect.
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Whoever was responsible for that bad judgement within NOAA should resign as well.

Consider the public confusion that would have occurred if widespread east coast hurricane/tropical storm watches or warnings were issued and then got canceled because Sandy transitioned earlier than it did. No question NOAA/NWS made the right call.


That happens with every second tropical storm, it happened f.ex. with Tropical storm Lee last year, IRRC. So where's the problem. I do not agree: NOAA did the wrong call. IMHO people died because they underestimated the danger because of there weren't hurrican/tropical storm warnings. People made the same misjudgement which made by Mr. Bloomberg (though his advisors might have figured it out at least before the event and still too late.
Quoting nrtiwlnvragn:


There is a belief that the general public will take seriously a hurricane warning versus a gale warning, this is somewhat validated by NHC's own actions. They were concerned that the forecast was for post tropical prior to landfall and the removing of hurricane/tropical storm warnings would lead people to not take the storm seriously.


Yeh,you might be right,but when you see wind speeds forecast over 70 mph,with gusts to 100,common sense should take over and tell you there is going to be a lot of damage going on,no matter what the warnings.
With our nor'easters up here,when they tell us winds may gust over 70,you better take that seriously.Numbers should be what counts,not what warnings are up.
684. MahFL
The main problem is the shock at all the damage. The other thing people can't quite understand is Sandy came ashore and plowed all the way to the Great Lakes. Most Hurricanes and North Easters skim the coast and then move away. And of course at the end of the day Sandy has indeed done historic damage to NJ/New York and proberbly many other places. Also the large number of people killed by falling trees shows they did not quite understand the danger they were in.
I see regular posters defending NHC while the victims and lurkers are bashing NHC... I got to go with NHC on this one. People should've been prepared and not listen to the others.
Quoting MahFL:
The main problem is the shock at all the damage. The other thing people can't quite understand is Sandy came ashore and plowed all the way to the Great Lakes. Most Hurricanes and North Easters skim the coast and then move away. And of course at the end of the day Sandy has indeed done historic damage to NJ/New York and proberbly many other places. Also the large number of people killed by falling trees shows they did not quite understand the danger they were in.

Like I've been saying, the trajectory of this system really was the big blow of the system. Northeast hurricanes nor Nor-Easters DO NOT typical act this way. Very alarming, and I am sure hoping that's not the future trend. I really hope not.
Quoting MahFL:
The main problem is the shock at all the damage. The other thing people can't quite understand is Sandy came ashore and plowed all the way to the Great Lakes. Most Hurricanes and North Easters skim the coast and then move away. And of course at the end of the day Sandy has indeed done historic damage to NJ/New York and proberbly many other places. Also the large number of people killed by falling trees shows they did not quite understand the danger they were in.
the
Quoting MahFL:
The main problem is the shock at all the damage. The other thing people can't quite understand is Sandy came ashore and plowed all the way to the Great Lakes. Most Hurricanes and North Easters skim the coast and then move away. And of course at the end of the day Sandy has indeed done historic damage to NJ/New York and proberbly many other places. Also the large number of people killed by falling trees shows they did not quite understand the danger they were in.
the shock is the most ridiculous part of it all. This storm was going to happen and another like it will happen again. If you live on the coast this is something you should be ready for.
688. RayT
Hey, I noticed a system with a lot of spin just south of the Azores. I know the SST's are a little low for development there, but if the system floats south or west it could potentially be a problem.


I dont know if this is a warm or cold core system (hopefully cold core cuz they take longer to develop)

can anyone confirm what the forcast is for this system?

Quoting TomballTXPride:

I like it, too. At least at the others places I blog, there is usually two sides of the story, both sides bringing commentary in and then allowing users to decide for themselves upon what to believe. Not here. Here, one is ostracized for allowing anything to be introduced into the equation that doesn't suggest man is solely changing the climate. Oh well. Just an observation.
Quoting Neapolitan:
Science isn't a matter of opinion or belief. It's not like religion, where people can hear "both sides" and then make up their minds based on what they think works best for them. No, science is based on empirical research--and that research quite clearly demonstrates both that the climate is rapidly changing and that it's doing so primarily (if not mostly) because of our burning of fossil fuels. No one is "ostracized" here for implying otherwise, but they are repeatedly challenged to provide scientific evidence to support the things they say, and they are often ridiculed for repeatedly failing to provide it.

There may be "two sides" to the climate change issue--but, scientifically-speaking, only one of those sides is correct. The other side is just talking nonsense.

(NOTE: I am not saying there are no honest skeptics--but those honest skeptics only disagree about the amount of warming, not whether it's happening.)


Thanks Nea for stepping up for Science. BTW apropos is the Issac Asimov quote...Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' Newsweek 1.21.1980.
Quoting NEwxguy:


Yeh,you might be right,but when you see wind speeds forecast over 70 mph,with gusts to 100,common sense should take over and tell you there is going to be a lot of damage going on,no matter what the warnings.
With our nor'easters up here,when they tell us winds may gust over 70,you better take that seriously.Numbers should be what counts,not what warnings are up.


Members of this blog understand, it is the general public; the ones you meet at the store during the peak of storm preparations who say "sure is busy, what is going on?"
I saw a few bloggers that kept saying this storm was being overhyped, I think it was underhyped or better way of putting it hyped in the wrong way. the average person out there has no concept of storm surge.You tell them there is going to be a 6 to 8 ft storm surge,they have no idea what that means as far as impact on the shore and what that amount of water can do.
Broadcasters should have had someone on the tv explaining what a storm surge will do and the effects of such an event and why people need to get out.Instead of showing the shoreline and the how conditions are going downhill,how about showing what he effects will do,but thats not entertaining enough,its better to show a reporter standing out in the conditions,being blow around.We do a lousy job of alerting the public on what may happen when it hits.
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
I don't see what the discussion about the NHC choices was.
Things were set into motion that could not be undone.

They made a decision. The warnings about the system were still disseminated, and frankly, its a coin toss as to whether hurricane warnings or high wind warnings were necessary....but either way, does it really matter?



Nope. People were getting blitzed with news coverage of 'Frankenstorm' from the media. They got all the details, such as expected 80 mph winds at landfall. Landfall in NJ, huge windfield and potentially damaging storm surge in NYC, bizzards in the mountains etc.

All that info came from the NHC, so what's all the fuss about?
Quoting Matthias1967:


That happens with every second tropical storm, it happened f.ex. with Tropical storm Lee last year, IRRC. So where's the problem. I do not agree: NOAA did the wrong call. IMHO people died because they underestimated the danger because of there weren't hurrican/tropical storm warnings. People made the same misjudgement which made by Mr. Bloomberg (though his advisors might have figured it out at least before the event and still too late.
I have no idea what "f.ex" and "IIRC" mean. I see no correlation between this storm and Lee.

The NWS does not cause weather to hit coastlines. They forecast it. Doesn't matter what kind, the warnings, surge forecast, all of it was out there. I do not blame them for the effects of this storm. The only persons who underestimated the danger were those who did not believe what was forecasted could happen. I'm going to repost this, and that will be all I have to say on this subject.

"Consider the public confusion that would have occurred if widespread east coast hurricane/tropical storm watches or warnings were issued and then got canceled because Sandy transitioned earlier than it did. No question NOAA/NWS made the right call."
"No, a simple Cat 1 hurricane warning would not have cured it, because it caused a category 3 equivalent storm surge, and had a typical category 3 (~125mph) equivalent low pressure.


Therefore, it should have been warned as a category 3 equivalent storm.

Another reason some sort of two-tiered ranking system, like the split system that was never used properly from the OLD SS scale, needs to be emplimented for larger storms."



Well that is on us as "mets" (professional or not) because the NHC has clearly stated that SS is no longer a metric for hurricane strength.

- theres no such thing as hurricane-strength gusts
- theres no such thing (anymore) as category 1 storm with category 3 surge (unless theyve invented a surge scale...

Oh thats right, AOML did, and said it was 5.8/6 then dropped slightly to 5.6 / 5.
Quoting NEwxguy:
I saw a few bloggers that kept saying this storm was being overhyped, I think it was underhyped or better way of putting it hyped in the wrong way. the average person out there has no concept of storm surge.You tell them there is going to be a 6 to 8 ft storm surge,they have no idea what that means as far as impact on the shore and what that amount of water can do.
Broadcasters should have had someone on the tv explaining what a storm surge will do and the effects of such an event and why people need to get out.Instead of showing the shoreline and the how conditions are going downhill,how about showing what he effects will do,but thats not entertaining enough,its better to show a reporter standing out in the conditions,being blow around.We do a lousy job of alerting the public on what may happen when it hits.
seriously? If you live on the coast and don't understand storm surge your an ignorant fool. You are living in the danger zone understand your situation. This is the exact problem with our society. One person doesn't understand their environment due to ignorance and you blame a news organization for not explaining it to them. Get real.
Quoting zschmiez:


Can you point to a source that indicates 1-min sustained winds over land of 74 mph? I've seen plenty of GUSTS over 74, but as we all know, gusts do not a hurricane make.

But it does sound like TS warning should have been in place. would anyone have complained if they "made-up" a post-tropical storm warning on the spot???


You are now officially my hero! Finally someone else, besides me who recognizes that this was a tropical storm and if any additional warnings had been extended northward, they should have been Tropical Storm Warnings. I get so tired of people around here hyping things to death. Yesterday I saw that someone expected Sandy to be upgraded to a Cat 2 storm at landfall once the season is over. Hogwash!

However, beyond all the wishcasting that goes on around here, this is an excellent lesson about the power of tropical storms. "Just a tropical storm" should be removed from the lexicon.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/dems-try -to-push-climate-change-issue-in-wake-sandy-but-so me-scientists/#

OK...crucify me...but its a NOAA scientist and a good article about the intellectual struggle that this presents
Quoting AussieStorm:


Why did the media start calling it "Superstorm" Sandy, Cause the NHC stopped calling it a Hurricane and stopped issuing Hurricane and Tropical storm warnings.

The media started calling it "superstorm" Sandy because that's what the media does, they come up with terms or follow the popular hyped term that people come up with.

I went to the NHC to see if Sandy was still a Hurricane and found she was but no watches or warnings cause they had passed Sandy over to the NWS. Why did they hand it over to the NWS to issue watches and warnings?

The NHC is part of the NWS. When a system transitions to extra-tropical, responsibility for issuing advisories becomes the role of the HPC. This is by NWS policy.

Did the NHC stopping issuing these watches and warning make people become complacent?

No. Why would the NHC do that?

Which sounds more foreboding Category 1 Hurricane Sandy or "Superstorm" Sandy.

Depends on who you ask. I've heard some complain that calling it a Cat1 at landfall would make people think of Irene and not a nor'easter. I've heard some say the opposite and claim that people ignore nor'easters but would listen to hurricanes. I doubt either is 100% correct because regardless of category, the impacts of Sandy were particularly rare for the impacted area.

Did the NHC under-forecast the storm-tide? I remember seeing they predicted 6'-11' for New York/Battery Park.


This is a complicated question that has caused much confusion. Typically in the gulf you will see many gauges reported to the public on the NAVD88 or NGVD29 datum. These would be datums that you typically have your home surveyed to for insurance purposes. In some areas, this is a rough approximation for sea level (but not always). Many tide gauges in the NE seem to be reported to the public in Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), which is a datum very similar to a 19yr average of low tide. These numbers are not the same, and many times are different by 2-4ft.

At the Battery Park, NYC, NY, gauge, the average level before Sandy was about 2.7ft, and tidal swings went from about 0.0-5.0ft. Storm tide is total water level, so ~2.0ft from tides plus ~9.0ft of storm surge is ~11.0ft of total water level, all in the NAVD88 datum. Because Battery Park is typically reported in MLLW, that ~11.0ft of storm tide converts to ~13.5-14.0ft on the gauge.
Quoting hulazigzag:
seriously? If you live on the coast and don't understand storm surge your an ignorant fool. You are living in the danger zone understand your situation. This is the exact problem with our society. One person doesn't understand their environment due to ignorance and you blame a news organization for not explaining it to them. Get real.


No,Im not going to sit here and blame the media,thats too easy,they can send all the reporters down to the beaches they want.It is a society thing,the majority of people who build on the shores are only concerned with the view,I would bet only a handful of people have any remote idea,what a storm surge can do.We just want to live on the ocean,that's why our coastline is packed from Maine to Florida and beyond.
Quoting Pipejazz:


Thanks Nea for stepping up for Science. BTW apropos is the Issac Asimov quote...Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' Newsweek 1.21.1980.
LOL..Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
George Bernard Shaw

Quoting NEwxguy:


No,Im not going to sit here and blame the media,thats too easy,they can send all the reporters down to the beaches they want.It is a society thing,the majority of people who build on the shores are only concerned with the view,I would bet only a handful of people have any remote idea,what a storm surge can do.We just want to live on the ocean,that's why our coastline is packed from Maine to Florida and beyond.
well that's a 180 from your first quote. I would disagree that most on the coast aren't aware of the affects of storm surge or a hurricane. I've lived on the coast for over 10 years I know my neighbors and myself fully understand and are prepared to lose everything that's just a fact of life on the coast.
Quoting LargoFl:
wow Northwestern Canada..start preparing..another Monster storm up there...........................................


More like Southern coastal Alaska should take note, but these bombs are pretty common in the Gulf of Alaska. Might get a bit windy in the southern Yukon, but that's about it. Not much up there really. A 7.7 earthquake in Haida Gwai on the weekend produced not only zero deaths, but zero injuries! The area has appropriate coastal construction (i.e. no houses on the beach).
Quoting guygee:
What are these "complicated sets of reasoning" that you mention? C'mon, let us in on the secret very complex and serious-minded reasoning, I think we can handle it here.


The fact that it was a hybrid storm, social considerations for changing between warning types as the landfall forecast oscillated between tropical/extratropical, the combined thoughts of multiple affected NWS offices that are taken into account each NHC conference call. I believe these topics were also covered more in depth by statements released by HPC/NHC.
Have been reading for a few years. Never joined or posted until after Sandy. Live in Brooklyn in flood zone B, so didn't evacuate. Flood Zone A ends about 1/2 mile from my house. Flood waters got within about 1/10th mile south of my building Monday night. Zone B supposed to be flooded only in Cat 2 storms or above. Not surprised all of zone A was flooded as Sandy was strong cat 1 on landfall. Large windfield effect and sheer size of storm accounts for partial flooding of zone B.

My confusion is that new scale showing surge threat a 5.6 or 5.8 out of 6. If that's right, shouldn't all of zone B flooded, and also some of zone C? I was reading here and those numbers scared me, yet evacuating B was never even mentioned. How valid is that new scale? Is it experimental? Will it be revised after Sandy?
Quoting bappit:
Things are progressing. Shock, denial, anger, whining ...
bappit..... All of those things you stated will happen, whether it is a house fire, a police beating, a celebrity photo, or a tremendously destructive storm.. My humble opinion.. Whether there were hurricane warnings or not, There was so much publicity(and days ahead of the event) that the majority of people had to be aware of what was coming.. I don't think the warning or not status was an issue....... We all knew
Ok,I've said my piece,and not 180 degree change from my quote,more of a 90 degree change,still think the media wastes way too much time showing us the conditions rather then educating the public.Glad to hear your neighbors are up on surges,but I still think an enormous amount of people are ignorant of the what storms and storm surge can do to a coastline.
Quoting guygee:
I guess if the NHC pronounces a storm 'extra-tropical', then it is de facto extra-tropical regardless of the scientific data. End of story.
I am done.


For most purposes in the U.S. (and even other countries), it is the prerogative of the NOAA/NHC to determine the best track of tropical/subtropical systems in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and Atlantic Ocean. The preliminary track data from the NHC remains the best-available, official data until the typical post-season re-analysis.
you know its funny..I..watched and followed that storm for days and days, me myself, i kept concentrating on the WINDS, yes they were saying it would have a monsterous storm surge, yet me myself..i kept watching the winds..im thinking, so did the people up there..never in a million years did they think the whole ocean would come in..neither did I
Quoting zschmiez:


Can you point to a source that indicates 1-min sustained winds over land of 74 mph? I've seen plenty of GUSTS over 74, but as we all know, gusts do not a hurricane make.

But it does sound like TS warning should have been in place.

As is typical with most land-falling systems, the maximum sustained winds are rarely sampled by the course network of meteorological stations. The winds also diminish rapidly once they are influenced by the friction of the coastline. The current estimate of wind field from Hwind follows that thinking, showing the hurricane-force winds only occurring right at the coastline, then diminishing.
Quoting indianrivguy:


not really, the fact that Ike came in to the north of Galveston had everything to do with the low death count. Had it come in 25-30 miles south, Galveston, and all the folks that listened to their Mayor would likely be dead.

I agree with both of you. The sea wall did work. It blocked the waves that would have destroyed the structures people were in. Also, yes, Galveston was lucky Ike turned or the death toll would have been far higher since the worst wind and surge went further north. Structures would have been destroyed despite the protection from the sea wall. I think Bolivar Peninsula was toast either way.

Personally, I would have left the island and not taken my chances. The island flooded anyway--seawall or not. A flood like that leaves people helpless against whatever comes on top of it.

North America Sandy death toll rises to 'at least 76'
Last updated Thu 1 Nov 2012

The of number people in North America that died as a result of Sandy has risen to at least 76, Reuters reported.
Quoting LargoFl:
you know its funny..I..watched and followed that storm for days and days, me myself, i kept concentrating on the WINDS, yes they were saying it would have a monsterous storm surge, yet me myself..i kept watching the winds..im thinking, so did the people up there..never in a million years did they think the whole ocean would come in..neither did I
Largo, I was pinpointing the winds also, because of the 4 hurricanes I have been through the winds were the issue, not the water, But that's on the east coast of Florida
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Largo, I was pinpointing the winds also, because of the 4 hurricanes I have been through the winds were the issue, not the water, But that on the east coast of Florida
yes i think we are programmed to look for the winds over the years huh..after sandy im going to stop doing that lol..im 40 feet above sea level and 4 miles from the coast..im not so sure..given high winds, that im as safe as i used to think i am....sandy was a wake up call and a huge Lesson for all of us huh
714. JLPR2
Hmm...
Quoting Evan3457:
Live in Brooklyn in flood zone B, so didn't evacuate. Flood Zone A ends about 1/2 mile from my house. Flood waters got within about 1/10th mile south of my building Monday night. Zone B supposed to be flooded only in Cat 2 storms or above.

It's not correct to say "suppose to flood only in Cat 2." That is the area that is estimated to flood for a hypothetical, average Cat2 storm. It's for planning purposes only. Every storm is different, and surge forecasts will be tailored to that exact storm. When an actual storm threatens, the areas that are "suppose to" get water will be those lower than the forecasts surge level for that specific storm, which may be similar to the flood zones.
Quoting Evan3457:

My confusion is that new scale showing surge threat a 5.6 or 5.8 out of 6. If that's right, shouldn't all of zone B flooded, and also some of zone C?

No. Threat is not a height, it's a combination of coverage and height. More indicative of the number of properties that might be affected, not how high the water will be.
Quoting Evan3457:

I was reading here and those numbers scared me, yet evacuating B was never even mentioned. How valid is that new scale? Is it experimental? Will it be revised after Sandy?

That surge threat is more of an index than an actual scale. When planning to evacuate, one should make a risk-based decision taking into account the actual elevation range of surge forecasted (remember to add in tides on top of surge!) and the elevation of the property in question. If surge is forecasted at 6-10ft and will occur at high tide of +2.0ft, that means anything at 8-12ft of elevation could flood. Personal decisions should be made according to that information, not an index that is more the storm as a whole.
I'd like to see signs put up in the areas impacted by Sandy's storm surge which indicate the height of the water at it's peak.. this would be a great reminder to folks in the area when faced with another potential surge event. This shouldn't be too expensive and would be a good reality check for the locals...
Quoting LargoFl:
yes i think we are programmed to look for the winds over the years huh..after sandy im going to stop doing that lol..im 40 feet above sea level and 4 miles from the coast..im not so sure..given high winds, that im as safe as i used to think i am....sandy was a wake up call and a huge Lesson for all of us huh
Largo, I am less than 100 yards from the Intracoastal, never had a problem with water
Echoing someone on CNN who chose to stay during a mandatory evacuation in Breezy Point NY, 'mandatory should be mandatory'....As Americans, we abhor the loss of choice but it's unthinkable to endanger the lives of first responders....
The GFS long range model is still showing a very strong low in the NE next week.


Human nature is funny..we all SEE the vast destruction from the water coming in huh....yet..2-3-4 years from now..the states want to erect a 15-20 foot seawall all along the whole northeast coastline.just step back and you can hear the HOWLS of rage..dont you DARE..block my view of the ocean..just my opinion but..deep inside you know im right..people..humans dont learn..animals do, bet there wasnt a dog or cat anywhere near when that storm came in, or if they were they were stopped by humans
Quoting Evan3457:
Have been reading for a few years. Never joined or posted until after Sandy. Live in Brooklyn in flood zone B, so didn't evacuate. Flood Zone A ends about 1/2 mile from my house. Flood waters got within about 1/10th mile south of my building Monday night. Zone B supposed to be flooded only in Cat 2 storms or above. Not surprised all of zone A was flooded as Sandy was strong cat 1 on landfall. Large windfield effect and sheer size of storm accounts for partial flooding of zone B.

My confusion is that new scale showing surge threat a 5.6 or 5.8 out of 6. If that's right, shouldn't all of zone B flooded, and also some of zone C? I was reading here and those numbers scared me, yet evacuating B was never even mentioned. How valid is that new scale? Is it experimental? Will it be revised after Sandy?


I am not certain, but I believe as the index is related to the storm speed, its intensity, the size of the radius of maximum winds, radius of the total wind fields, the angle of the track relative to the coastline, the physical characteristics of the coastline and the bathymetry of the water offshore, then the index is probably not a linear measure, but rather exponential. So there may be a big difference between a 5.6 and a 5.9, especially if the index has been converted into a probability distribution. Perhaps another blogger knows the real calculation mechanics.
Quoting Grothar:
The GFS long range model is still showing a very strong low in the NE next week.




bad timing....not the model, but the storm.
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Largo, I am less than 100 yards from the Intracoastal, never had a problem with water
..yep..neither did those folks up there..until now huh..gee
Quoting SarasotaToo:
Echoing someone on CNN who chose to stay during a mandatory evacuation in Breezy Point NY, 'mandatory should be mandatory'....As Americans, we abhor the loss of choice but it's unthinkable to endanger the lives of first responders....
Sarasota, I think also that people have worked hard all of their life to purchase the American dreams, house, car, beautiful neighborhood, security, wonderful life for their family, and they have in their mind they will protect it at all costs, sometimes "all costs" may be their life. Sad to say
Quoting NEwxguy:
I saw a few bloggers that kept saying this storm was being overhyped, I think it was underhyped or better way of putting it hyped in the wrong way. the average person out there has no concept of storm surge.You tell them there is going to be a 6 to 8 ft storm surge,they have no idea what that means as far as impact on the shore and what that amount of water can do.
Broadcasters should have had someone on the tv explaining what a storm surge will do and the effects of such an event and why people need to get out.Instead of showing the shoreline and the how conditions are going downhill,how about showing what he effects will do,but thats not entertaining enough,its better to show a reporter standing out in the conditions,being blow around.We do a lousy job of alerting the public on what may happen when it hits.
In a way I agree with this, and in a way I don't.

Yes, the general public and even local government elected officials, heads of business and heads of public institutions fall into the "don't understand storm surge" category. For example, wonder how many people understood the forecasted 6-11 feet of surge would come in on top of a roughly 5 foot high tide, raising the total surge-tide to 11-16 feet for Long Island, NY Harbor and... I don't remember off the top of my head how far along the NJ coast this forecasted height went.

Protecting the public is not entirely the job of forecasters and the media. Every level of government has an Emergency Manager, one aspect of whose job it is to understand possible effects of weather and interpret this to government officials. Only had we been behind closed doors would we know what discussions took place at State and local jurisdictions as those responsible for evacuation orders considered the oncoming storm(s). Business leaders and heads of schools and hospitals might pay better attention and err on the side of caution.

In a perfect world, everyone would be on the same page. Perhaps one day forecasters, media, business and institutions, state and local government will be, but I question members of the general public can ever be protected from themselves.
Quoting NEwxguy:
Ok,I've said my piece,and not 180 degree change from my quote,more of a 90 degree change,still think the media wastes way too much time showing us the conditions rather then educating the public.Glad to hear your neighbors are up on surges,but I still think an enormous amount of people are ignorant of the what storms and storm surge can do to a coastline.
Yes. And the media is one place they can be educated. Real life has unfortunately educated millions in the past couple days.
Quoting StormPro:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/dems-t ry -to-push-climate-change-issue-in-wake-sandy-but-so me-scientists/#

OK...crucify me...but its a NOAA scientist and a good article about the intellectual struggle that this presents


Media is bi-polar sometimes. For the last few years they rarely talk about climate change. Then an event happens and they freak out, talking about climate change too much. That provides the perception that scientists/media/whomever believe that a single event was somehow caused by climate change. This is not true. It is also not true to say that today's weather is not related to climate change.

We need to put the breaks on this sensationalist "Was Sandy caused by climate change?" talk and focus on what the science of climate actually tells us: Sandy-like disasters may increase in severity and frequency, and flood/drought disasters are expected to increase in severity and frequency. This increase will cost money and lives that would not have been lost were the climate change not to occur.

On the other hand, we need to really think twice about criticizing the timing for addressing this issue. When else will it be addressed? We've had years - if not decades - of knowing what was in store before it started becoming part of the observations instead of just the forecasts, and did little-to-nothing. Unfortunately, that's the way it works sometimes... takes a big event to motivate people to do the thing they wouldn't be pro-active about in the first place.
The EMCWF is also showing a strong low in a similar time period but further east.

Quoting LargoFl:
Human nature is funny..we all SEE the vast destruction from the water coming in huh....yet..2-3-4 years from now..the states want to erect a 15-20 foot seawall all along the whole northeast coastline.just step back and you can hear the HOWLS of rage..dont you DARE..block my view of the ocean..just my opinion but..deep inside you know im right..people..humans dont learn..animals do, bet there wasnt a dog or cat anywhere near when that storm came in, or if they were they were stopped by humans


No seawall required...just build back and open up all that beautiful coastline to the public. It shouldn't belong to anyone anyway.
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Sarasota, I think also that people have worked hard all of their life to purchase the American dreams, house, car, beautiful neighborhood, security, wonderful life for their family, and they have in their mind they will protect it at all costs, sometimes "all costs" may be their life. Sad to say

I agree with you. It's a pitiful position to be faced with...I'm thinking that the option should be removed from the individual as emotion clouds judgement.....I don't know but perhaps the policy needs to be revamped.....
Quoting Progster:


No seawall required...just build back and open up all that beautiful coastline to the public. It shouldn't belong to anyone anyway.
now THat is a great idea..plow all that rubble away and make parkland..open land..........wont happen though,people want that ocean view and in years to come..this happens all over again
Quoting Grothar:
The EMCWF is also showing a strong low in a similar time period but further east.

yes saw that yesterday on most of the models..even the Nam has it..but i think i saw it came down from the great lakes, not from the tropics
Quoting LargoFl:
now THat is a great idea..plow all that rubble away and make parkland..open land..........wont happen though,people want that ocean view and in years to come..this happens all over again


Well, I think there's an argument for making the immediate coastline parkland. The emergency response will probably cost as much as paying for those properties several times over...so in a way we've bought that beach already. I think a lot of people would be open to expropriation at a reasonable price now. It would save a lot of misery in the future.
Just to show you just HOW caught off guard officals were..even the Mayor of NYC didnt order evacs until the day before..remember?..two days before he was saying im not ordering evacs..then later changed his mind..they had no idea what was coming, maybe it will turn away..maybe it will weaken..evacs cost sooo much money and lost work hours etc..yes a lesson has been taught..never never..try to second guess..ole mother nature
Quoting Progster:


Well, I think there's an argument for making the immediate coastline parkland. The emergency response will probably cost as much as paying for those properties several times over...so in a way we've bought that beach already. I think a lot of people would be open to expropriation at a reasonable price now. It would save a lot of misery in the future.
I sure would like to see that happen
A very strong low is expected to develop in the far eastern Atlantic.



we had a hurricane hit here gaes ago..cut right thru the barrier islands..made johns pass..then went UP the Bay..pushing all the bay water in front of it..my county is a coastal county, water on 3 sides..my county was 3/4's submerged..i checked that in the records before i bought this house back in the 80's..where my house is..didnt flood..so i bought it...but..suppose an even stronger hurricane did the same thing..whew..alot of IF's in our lives huh
Quoting Grothar:
A very strong low is expected to develop in the far eastern Atlantic.





Looks like a low is already there.

GOES East Loop
gro..Low coming down from the great lakes.......
It's funny, becuase on Monday night/Tuesday morning here in the Panhandle of Florida we were freezing our buns off as temperatures dropped into the upper 30's, while the Mid-Atlantic was having a HURRICANE!!!! So much for Florida being hurricane central these past seven years. (we could barely get a cat 1 in the Gulf in late August, and now we just had a solid cat 1 hit New Jersey in late October!)
Quoting opal92nwf:
It's funny, becuase on Monday night/Tuesday morning here in the Panhandle of Florida we were freezing our buns off as temperatures dropped into the upper 30's, while the Mid-Atlantic was having a HURRICANE!!!! So much for Florida being hurricane central these past seven years. (we could barely get a cat 1 in the Gulf in late August, and now we just had a solid cat 1 hit New Jersey in late October!)
yes sure was an odd week alright
Nam at 24 hours,hits NYC then moves off the coast in 48 hours
Cuba has a VERY effective pre-disaster relocation protocol...they stick a gun in your face and say "Get on the bus...or we'll kill your ass!" Works like a charm...
Quoting Tazmanian:




reported watch how you say thing plzs


yea...and YOU reposted it...makes sense...
Quoting presslord:
Cuba has a VERY effective pre-disaster relocation protocol...they stick a gun in your face and say "Get on the bus...or we'll kill your ass!" Works like a charm...

Yup, that's the other side of the coin....:)

Quoting ScottLincoln:


Media is bi-polar sometimes. For the last few years they rarely talk about climate change. Then an event happens and they freak out, talking about climate change too much. That provides the perception that scientists/media/whomever believe that a single event was somehow caused by climate change. This is not true. It is also not true to say that today's weather is not related to climate change.

We need to put the breaks on this sensationalist "Was Sandy caused by climate change?" talk and focus on what the science of climate actually tells us: Sandy-like disasters may increase in severity and frequency, and flood/drought disasters are expected to increase in severity and frequency. This increase will cost money and lives that would not have been lost were the climate change not to occur.

On the other hand, we need to really think twice about criticizing the timing for addressing this issue. When else will it be addressed? We've had years - if not - decades of knowing what was in store before it started becoming part of the observations instead of just the forecasts, and did little-to-nothing. Unfortunately, that's the way it works sometimes... takes a big event to motivate people to do the thing they wouldn't be pro-active about in the first place.




Excellent. I am not a denier but I think with the small data set we have it is impossible to point to man as the biggest or only cause. I wish the energy wasted on arguing ones side was placed into efforts to slow or stop the change
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Largo, I was pinpointing the winds also, because of the 4 hurricanes I have been through the winds were the issue, not the water, But that's on the east coast of Florida


I'm on the west coast and I also concentrate on wind. GOM would not produce the higher storm surges we saw from Sandy, as the GOM is alot more shallow than the Atlantic.

BTW, love your avy! :)
Quoting presslord:


yea...and YOU reposted it...makes sense...



I guess you should have said "Keel" lol
Please if anyone did not know the dimensions in all respect of this storm at least 5 days before, if you were in a cave 3 days before you have had to been in denial. Which if you look at any general topic of discussion today, it is if it doesn't or hasn't affected me I don't want to hear about it. Good luck and carry on my wayward son.
Quoting presslord:
Cuba has a VERY effective pre-disaster relocation protocol...they stick a gun in your face and say "Get on the bus...or we'll kill your ass!" Works like a charm...
press....Did you know the Cubans can re-engineer a 1956 Chevy and drive it to Key West?
There are those who wish Sandy had never come to them. Who wish none of this had happened.

But so do all who live to see such times; but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world besides the will of evil. And that is an encouraging thought.

-plagiarized :D
I had always thought the gulf of mexico, because of its shape was one HUGE impact crater..guess it wasnt...it was caused by the earths plates moving
Quoting CybrTeddy:
No hurricane warning was needed because it wasn't expected to be a hurricane at landfall. This was accurate. However, hurricane force winds were experienced by many people before it made landfall and while it was tropical.

It matters little though, because the message was communicated the same, and the media helped hype it up. One of the rare times an event almost lives up to media hype.


No, I don't think so. True, the media was hyping a superstorm. However, the media did not tell the people what they can expect. (Actually the media did not know on theirselves). And, what actually is a superstorm? I cannot find a definition for such a term, neither in Wikipedia neither in John E. Oliver's "Encyclopedia of World Climatology".

On the other hand, the RA IV Hurricane Operational Plan says, a hurricane warning is a warning that one or both of the following dangerous effects of a hurricane are expected in a specified area: (a) average winds 118 km/h (74 mph) (64 knots) or higher; (b) dangerously high water or a combination of dangerously high water and exceptionally high waves, even though winds expected may be less than hurricane force. The warning is issued 36 hours in advance of the anticipated onset of tropical-storm-force winds. and similar a tropical storm warning, except that that is a warning that tropical storm conditions, sustained
winds within the range 63-117 km/h (39-73 mph) (34-63 knots) are expected in the specified area within 36 hours or less.
(Watches are basically the same except for they're issued 48 hours in advance.) No word on landfall, intensity at landfall ore expected extratropical transitation. The manual also states that it is not recommended to step down warnings; I am concluding on this provision that it is fair to leave on a hurricane or tropical storm warning even after extratropical transition.

Given that, not issuing hurricane warnings was a probably life-costing wrong-doing.
757. ARiot
Quoting StormPro:




Excellent. I am not a denier but I think with the small data set we have it is impossible to point to man as the biggest or only cause. I wish the energy wasted on arguing ones side was placed into efforts to slow or stop the change


It's not a small data set. It's probably larger than any other modern, developed theory with empirical evidence. None of that science suggests man is the only cause. It suggests man's contribution to climate forces is a significant problem.

Man is hard wired by evolution to fear the tiger in the grass and not necessarily react to the the slower moving forces that will harm him or his offspring 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now. You will see this play out for the rest of your life as we try to adapt to a planted we made significantly warmer.
Quoting StormPro:

I wish the energy wasted on arguing ones side was placed into efforts to slow or stop the change
That would be nice. The problem is that efforts to "slow or stop the change"--especially in the U.S.--are being fought tooth and nail by forces insistent on maintaining the fossil fuel-only paradigm as long as they can. And those forces, via their very deep pockets, have so far managed to convince a large-enough group of policymakers that change isn't happening. And thus we find ourselves at a standstill: science vs. ideology; common sense vs. hundreds of billions in annual profits. Right vs. (very) wrong.
Quoting SarasotaToo:
Echoing someone on CNN who chose to stay during a mandatory evacuation in Breezy Point NY, 'mandatory should be mandatory'....As Americans, we abhor the loss of choice but it's unthinkable to endanger the lives of first responders....

This is from someone who had to evacuate people for more than 20 years. A mandatory evacuation sounds good, but it doesn't work. What happens if a person refuses to leave? I can then arrest him. How about his whole family? I can arrest them too, although now I need three or four more deputies, since I only carry two pairs of cuffs. That's assuming they don't fight me. Then I have to taser them, write up a whole bunch of reports, and need another couple of deputies if we get more people fighting us. Then we have to transport them and book them into the country jail. Where do we get the deputies needed to do that? Who's telling everyone to get out if we have deputies tied up arresting whole neighborhoods?

From experience, I can tell you this doesn't work. What does work, and works really well, is handing out notices saying that, at "X" time, your power and gas is going to be turned off as part of public safety measures pre-planned for a storm. Let people know that they are on their own when it comes to being cold (or hot) because they'll have no power, they won't have any lights or TV, the internet probably won't work, and they'll have no gas for cooking. Also give each household a big Sharpie and have them write their social security number on their arms, so it will be easier to identify their remains once we are able to get back in and search the area.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of people would have left with those simple steps. The ones who stay behind after they know what's coming may die. That's the way nature works.
Quoting sar2401:

This is from someone who had to evacuate people for more than 20 years. A mandatory evacuation sounds good, but it doesn't work. What happens if a person refuses to leave? I can then arrest him. How about his whole family? I can arrest them too, although now I need three or four more deputies, since I only carry two pairs of cuffs. That's assuming they don't fight me. Then I have to taser them, write up a whole bunch of reports, and need another couple of duputies if we get more people fighting us. Then we have to transport them and book them into the country jail. Where do we get the deputies needed to do that? Who's telling everyone to get out if we have deputies tied up arresting whole neighborhoods?

From experience, I can tell you this doesn't work. What does work, and works really well, is handing out notices saying that, at "X" time, your power and gas is going to be turned off as part of public safety measures pre-planned for a storm. Let people know that they are on their own when it comes to being cold (or hot) because they'll have no power, they won't have any lights or TV, the internet probably won't work, and they'll have no gas for cooking. Also give each household a big Sharpie and have them write their social security number on their arms, so it will be easier to identify their remains once we are able to get back in and search the area.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of people would have left with those simple steps. The ones who stay behind after they know what's coming may die. That's the way nature works.


I dont know about other states but NC implemented a directive that if you choose to stay in a mandatory evacuation zone that you would be fine $1000.00..
Quoting Neapolitan:
That would be nice. The problem is that efforts to "slow or stop the change"--especially in the U.S.--are being fought tooth and nail by forces insistent on maintaining the fossil fuel-only paradigm as long as they can. And those forces, via their very deep pockets, have so far managed to convince a large-enough group of policymakers that change isn't happening. And thus we find ourselves at a standstill: science vs. ideology; common sense vs. hundreds of billions in annual profits. Right vs. (very) wrong.


and, I fear, it's irresolvable...Jeff Masters has said he thinks it's gonna take some sorta huge, catastrophic event to convince the deniers....I think he's wrong...the deniers will deny right up to the point they're taking their last breath, standing on tippy toes,,,before they start swallowing sea water...it's intractable, at this point...
Quoting ARiot:


It's not a small data set. It's probably larger than any other modern, developed theory with empirical evidence. None of that science suggests man is the only cause. It suggests man's contribution to climate forces is a significant problem.

Man is hard wired by evolution to fear the tiger in the grass and not necessarily react to the the slower moving forces that will harm him or his offspring 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now. You will see this play out for the rest of your life as we try to adapt to a planted we made significantly warmer.


I'm sorry if I don't understand but I'm speaking of the actual, concrete set of data...not supposed or assumed. Someone on here, quiet respected by most on here as a matter of fact, said just a couple days ago that artic sea ice was at an 8,000 year low...I asked for a link to proof of this statement and got no repley. Also on the other side of the coin those that say man isn't contributing to his own struggles with climate is equally as misleading with the soap boxes they stand on. I wish all of this "hot air" was spent brain storming...coming up with ideas to try, implement, to slow the change...that's my wish for the new year
The more I think about all of these things, the more I think we should stop trying to pretend that we can capture each storm's risks within a simple ranking system.

Each one is only itself, with its own set of potentially destructive factors, which are _themselves_ also defined by track, other weather interactions, so on. There is no number system that will capture that.

I realize plenty of folks here and elsewhere disagree, but I really heavily lean, at this point, toward the opinion that it would be way better just having the categories be tropical storm, hurricane, major hurricane. If needed as we go, add something like "hybrid storm" or something. And that's it for the easy categories -- get out the specific info that relates to each individual storm's potential destruction.

I think having the number system just leads people to make comparisons that are invalid -- "oh, I've been through that cat 2, so all cat 2 storms will be like it." Worse than less information, because it's _misleading_ information. And I think adding _more_ numbers just means nobody will understand what the heck it all means; the more complicated you make the categories, the less people will adopt the new system.

The only other thing I think could make sense would be more subjectively allowing the NHC to apply a "risk number" to categorize them, based on a number of set factors. But the subjectivity that would involve would also open a lot of cans of worms, especially if they got it wrong.

Eh. Just flicking a few thought pennies into the well. Take them for what they're worth.
At least 82 people in North America died in the superstorm, which ravaged the northeastern United States on Monday night, and officials said the count could climb higher as rescuers searched house-to-house through coastal towns.
 
More deaths were recorded overnight as the extent of destruction became clearer in the New York City borough of Staten Island, where the storm lifted whole houses off their foundations.
Quoting ScottLincoln:

As is typical with most land-falling systems, the maximum sustained winds are rarely sampled by the course network of meteorological stations. The winds also diminish rapidly once they are influenced by the friction of the coastline. The current estimate of wind field from Hwind follows that thinking, showing the hurricane-force winds only occurring right at the coastline, then diminishing.


Scott:

It was more of a response to "their were hurricane conditions in NJ." Posters harp about science and protocol, but ignore that unless sustained 1-min 74 mph winds were measured (we measure everything else), its not a hurricane by definition.

And we do indeed have records that show sustained HU winds over land.

Im having a hard time swallowing a pill that suggests that all stations reporting HU winds went down, but none of those measuring strong TS winds (and much higher gusts) did.
Quoting ncstorm:


I dont know about other states but NC implemented a directive that if you choose to stay in a mandatory evacuation zone that you would be fine $1000.00..

Sounds good, but it doesn't work either. How do you identify the ones that didn't leave? Assuming they're not found dead, how do you know they didn't leave at a time you weren't there? Do you go back after a major catastrophe and start handing out citations with the press from all over the world looking over your shoulder? Do you want to be the one that cites some poor lady in tears because her house is destroyed?

The easiest and most effective thing is turn off the utilities. Everyone hopes they can ride it out, and they will be the one house in the area that's not flooded and still has utility service. By turning off the utilities, you remove that "hope" that humans naturally have. There was clearly was no plan in place anywhere in the Northeast to do something like this. I was struck by how many neighborhoods completely underwater still had working streetlights.
almost 90 US fatalities....RIP to all

come on...for those whom are told to evacuate next time please do... I was told to and I knew...I didn't even hesitate to leave.

good afternoon to all
Quoting sar2401:

This is from someone who had to evacuate people for more than 20 years. A mandatory evacuation sounds good, but it doesn't work. What happens if a person refuses to leave? I can then arrest him. How about his whole family? I can arrest them too, although now I need three or four more deputies, since I only carry two pairs of cuffs. That's assuming they don't fight me. Then I have to taser them, write up a whole bunch of reports, and need another couple of duputies if we get more people fighting us. Then we have to transport them and book them into the country jail. Where do we get the deputies needed to do that? Who's telling everyone to get out if we have deputies tied up arresting whole neighborhoods?

From experience, I can tell you this doesn't work. What does work, and works really well, is handing out notices saying that, at "X" time, your power and gas is going to be turned off as part of public safety measures pre-planned for a storm. Let people know that they are on their own when it comes to being cold (or hot) because they'll have no power, they won't have any lights or TV, the internet probably won't work, and they'll have no gas for cooking. Also give each household a big Sharpie and have them write their social security number on their arms, so it will be easier to identify their remains once we are able to get back in and search the area.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of people would have left with those simple steps. The ones who stay behind after they know what's coming may die. That's the way nature works.

Excellent post....
How'sa 'bout a color coded system? Like we used to do with the terror alerts......'cause that worked so well....
LurkeyMcLurkerson:

What if we quit using wind speeds and surge height, and started being more EF-scale-like:

Cat-1: live on the coast? you are likely to lose your home to wind or surge. Leave now. In a surge zone? unless you can hunt for food or generate your own power, you will hate this week.

Cat-2: Smell the ocean? If yes, your house will lose its roof.

Cat-3: ....
Quoting presslord:
How'sa 'bout a color coded system? Like we used to do with the terror alerts......'cause that worked so well....
what abouut if someone is colour blind how would that work
New GFS 12z is showing a 990mb low heading just of Jersey up into Boston starting Tuesday. Won't be anything like what we just had but a Noreaster with 30-40mph winds looks about what it is showing now. Recovery will be a problem
Quoting sar2401:

Sounds good, but it doesn't work either. How do you identify the ones that didn't leave? Assuming they're not found dead, how do you know they didn't leave at a time you weren't there? Do you go back after a major catastrophe and start handing out citations with the press from all over the world looking over your shoulder? Do you want to be the one that cites some poor lady in tears because her house is destroyed?

The easiest and most effective thing is turn off the utilities. Everyone hopes they can ride it out, and they will be the one house in the area that's not flooded and still has utility service. By turning off the utilities, you remove that "hope" that humans naturally have. There was clearly was no plan in place anywhere in the Northeast to do something like this. I was struck by how many neighborhoods completely underwater still had working streetlights.


Who pays for the flooded basement that is flooded because ConEd cut the power and the sump pump didnt run? Even though the power grid survived?
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
what abouut if someone is colour blind how would that work


Braille?!?! ;-)
Quoting ncstorm:
LOL..for real??


No prank: US military forces train for zombie apocalypse

I think Brad Barker is playing too much Call of Duty Black ops Zombie mode or watching to much 28 days/weeks later lucky for me I have not gotten any Commanding officers that go crazy over zombies and ordered us guys to do any zombie training
Quoting presslord:

and, I fear, it's irresolvable...Jeff Masters has said he thinks it's gonna take some sorta huge, catastrophic event to convince the deniers....I think he's wrong...the deniers will deny right up to the point they're taking their last breath, standing on tippy toes,,,before they start swallowing sea water...it's intractable, at this point...

Quoting Matthias1967:


No, I don't think so. True, the media was hyping a superstorm. However, the media did not tell the people what they can expect. (Actually the media did not know on theirselves). And, what actually is a superstorm? I cannot find a definition for such a term, neither in Wikipedia neither in John E. Oliver's "Encyclopedia of World Climatology".

On the other hand, the RA IV Hurricane Operational Plan says, a hurricane warning is a warning that one or both of the following dangerous effects of a hurricane are expected in a specified area: (a) average winds 118 km/h (74 mph) (64 knots) or higher; (b) dangerously high water or a combination of dangerously high water and exceptionally high waves, even though winds expected may be less than hurricane force. The warning is issued 36 hours in advance of the anticipated onset of tropical-storm-force winds. and similar a tropical storm warning, except that that is a warning that tropical storm conditions, sustained
winds within the range 63-117 km/h (39-73 mph) (34-63 knots) are expected in the specified area within 36 hours or less.
(Watches are basically the same except for they're issued 48 hours in advance.) No word on landfall, intensity at landfall ore expected extratropical transitation. The manual also states that it is not recommended to step down warnings; I am concluding on this provision that it is fair to leave on a hurricane or tropical storm warning even after extratropical transition.

Given that, not issuing hurricane warnings was a probably life-costing wrong-doing.
Good morning all. I have been reading back some and if you are blaming the NHC for all those people not evacuating, you are wrong! I have been trying to come to an understanding of why people don't evacuate, including myself. I think I have come to the conclusion that it is because of the fact that we do not feel we are in danger. We take risks everyday, but unless you feel you are in danger, you keep taking those risks. I felt fine riding my bike to work after Wilma until I started hearing stories about people being sideswiped or hit by cars. Then I started worrying and becoming less secure on the bike. Needless to say, I have stopped riding it. That is my 2 cents on the subject, so give it a break please.
Quoting SarasotaToo:

Yup, that's the other side of the coin....:)

If you are going to live in an area with known potential for destructive events you have no excuse not to be educated and prepared. We can not rely on any entity to provide all-sufficient warning in all circumstances... Sandy could have jogged at the last minute and effected a whole different section of coastline. We don't know when 'The Big One' is going to take out significant portions of the West Coast (albeit some Italian judicial officials feel we should?!). I realize that I'm preaching to the choir for the most part... (for the Jr. Highers: 'preaching to the choir' means that you are talking to a group who already agree with what you are saying) but I guess my hope is that the enlightened will seek to spread said enlightenment throughout their community lessening the chances of Portlight needing showing up in your neighborhood.
Quoting presslord:


and, I fear, it's irresolvable...Jeff Masters has said he thinks it's gonna take some sorta huge, catastrophic event to convince the deniers....I think he's wrong...the deniers will deny right up to the point they're taking their last breath, standing on tippy toes,,,before they start swallowing sea water...it's intractable, at this point...
This is true. There are people who will not be convinced of anything simply because they dont listen or understand anyone or anything but themselves....Psychologists marvel at this stuff.
I suppose everyone's seen Bloomberg Buisnessweek's latest cover, but just in case you missed it...

NYC threat level

1 roach
2 Mosquito
3 Feral Cat
4 Rabid Dog
5 Subway Sewer Rat
6 Bronx Zoo Python
7 Sewer Alligator
8 Godzilla
Quoting presslord:


Braille?!?! ;-)
how about specific odors being release up wind! You could get lots of folks moving quickly that way!
1st image I've seen of Sandy's effect on Liberty Island...

Quoting biff4ugo:
NYC threat level

1 roach
2 Mosquito
3 Feral Cat
4 Rabid Dog
5 Subway Sewer Rat
6 Bronx Zoo Python
7 Sewer Alligator
8 Godzilla

Don't forget rats

Quoting ChillinInTheKeys:
1st image I've seen of Sandy's effect on Liberty Island...


LOLx10000000000000000000000000000000000000000
that is the best I've seen in a long time!
As I have said many times on this blog, we do not know why people chose to stay..it could have been economical or health reasons..Im sure there were people who stayed because they felt their were safe or some wanted to experience a thrill but I just think they are a very small number of the total who didnt evacuate..until you have walked in people shoes and know their circumstances, its easy to sit here and say people should evacuate and if they dont, they are on their own..its not easy to pick up at a week's notice and pay for a hotel room or gas up your vehicle and head to a shelter probably 50 miles..
Quoting Skyepony:


Fact~ It had completely been front smacked by landfall..it was certainly frontal in nature by that point (pointed that out with phase diagram at the time) or it wouldn't have been snowing. I would fully agree if the front hadn't been pulled it to it by that point. We have to consider the whole huge storm, not just the center.


The snow occurred in the front only, a good way west of the Appalachians, hundred's of miles away from the hurricane's center. Sandy was still not frontal almost two days after landfall, still pulling moist from as far as the Gulf of California and from South of the Azores. On the satellite film, which was posted here yesterday, it appears that Sandy absorbed the front and not the other way around.
Quoting zschmiez:


Who pays for the flooded basement that is flooded because ConEd cut the power and the sump pump didnt run? Even though the power grid survived?

Who says power will always work during any storm? If a sump pump is important to keep your basement from flooding, you need an emergency generator. Still, I suspect that paying for flooded basements if nothing happened would be a lot less that we're paying now that something happened.
Quoting Matthias1967:


No, I don't think so. True, the media was hyping a superstorm. However, the media did not tell the people what they can expect. (Actually the media did not know on theirselves). And, what actually is a superstorm? I cannot find a definition for such a term, neither in Wikipedia neither in John E. Oliver's "Encyclopedia of World Climatology".

On the other hand, the RA IV Hurricane Operational Plan says, a hurricane warning is a warning that one or both of the following dangerous effects of a hurricane are expected in a specified area: (a) average winds 118 km/h (74 mph) (64 knots) or higher; (b) dangerously high water or a combination of dangerously high water and exceptionally high waves, even though winds expected may be less than hurricane force. The warning is issued 36 hours in advance of the anticipated onset of tropical-storm-force winds. and similar a tropical storm warning, except that that is a warning that tropical storm conditions, sustained
winds within the range 63-117 km/h (39-73 mph) (34-63 knots) are expected in the specified area within 36 hours or less.
(Watches are basically the same except for they're issued 48 hours in advance.) No word on landfall, intensity at landfall ore expected extratropical transitation. The manual also states that it is not recommended to step down warnings; I am concluding on this provision that it is fair to leave on a hurricane or tropical storm warning even after extratropical transition.

Given that, not issuing hurricane warnings was a probably life-costing wrong-doing.


Has anyone figured out exactly why hurricane warnings and watches were not issued for the east coast?... Anyone... Anyone...? Bueler???
Quoting MechEngMet:


Has anyone figured out exactly why hurricane warnings and watches were not issued for the east coast?... Anyone... Anyone...? Bueler???
I think I heard that yesterday.Am I right? Word for word
Quoting sar2401:

Sounds good, but it doesn't work either. How do you identify the ones that didn't leave? Assuming they're not found dead, how do you know they didn't leave at a time you weren't there? Do you go back after a major catastrophe and start handing out citations with the press from all over the world looking over your shoulder? Do you want to be the one that cites some poor lady in tears because her house is destroyed?

The easiest and most effective thing is turn off the utilities. Everyone hopes they can ride it out, and they will be the one house in the area that's not flooded and still has utility service. By turning off the utilities, you remove that "hope" that humans naturally have. There was clearly was no plan in place anywhere in the Northeast to do something like this. I was struck by how many neighborhoods completely underwater still had working streetlights.


Because the police go house to house in those mandatory evacuation zones before the storm hits and when you tell them you are staying, you get handed your fine papers..
A long way out, but looks interesting...
here is what I think the USA or the hurricane prone states should do when it comes to evacuations

if warnings are issued or (in this case not) demand mandatory evacuations to all areas at major risk.....

IF by POPULAR DECISION the answer for evacuation is no...take the risk of dying by staying at home... then a fine should be imposed to all of those and multiplied by the number of people in the house because if something unexpected happens which puts people in immediate danger...then whose fault is it..???

The rescue teams also risks their life savings those for danger...they have no need to rescue anyone told to evacuate but the others who were not told to.

That money could go for the rescue teams...national guard...military...and all the other corps helping..

Im sorry if i sound too harsh but nowadays people just take that extra step so unnecessarily when they can just pack the needed bags for evacuation. I know it's hard to leave your home which you might not see again but a life is worth MUCH MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE...then you have the challenge to rebuild or repair the damages we face.
Sandy gets some remote sensing assistance with charter activation.

http://www.disasterscharter.org/home
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
I think I heard that yesterday.Am I right? Word for word


Well thanks for the response but, I honestly don't know (I wasn't here yesterday). If it has already been discussed please provide a synopsis of the conclusions, or if possible refer me to some of the better comments.
Quoting biff4ugo:
NYC threat level

1 roach
2 Mosquito
3 Feral Cat
4 Rabid Dog
5 Subway Sewer Rat
6 Bronx Zoo Python
7 Sewer Alligator
8 Godzilla


Ha!
Quoting biff4ugo:
NYC threat level

1 roach
2 Mosquito
3 Feral Cat
4 Rabid Dog
5 Subway Sewer Rat
6 Bronx Zoo Python
7 Sewer Alligator
8 Godzilla
Rats are becoming a real issue now
Quoting MechEngMet:


Well thanks for the response but, I honestly don't know (I wasn't here yesterday). If it has already been discussed please provide a synopsis of the conclusions, or if possible refer me to some of the better comments.
Wow..You sure make life complicated..... Guess I won't ask you any more questions. Sorry to make "me" think
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Rats are becoming a real issue now
I bet they are. I was wondering how many drowned. Also, when they pump out those subway tunnels, how many homeless they will find have drowned. And don't forget the alligators!
My company has a small office in Manhattan. Just got a report this morning from our office manager:

"The entire southern end of Manhattan has no power. All manholes are filled with salt water and massive pumping and evaluation is being done now. The 14th st con Ed substation with an 11 ft high wall to protect it was topped with 12.5 ft of cold salt water. When the water came in it [the substation] was lost. I was in the area yesterday to assist with an emergency building pump out and can only say that the level of damage both now and to the infrastructure moving forward is difficult to describe...

Trains are still mainly off line and almost all subways are still down. Travel by car is next to impossible( I spent over 4 hours getting to southern NYC yesterday). Parking is not yet allowed and there are no traffic lights."
I live in western New Jersey along route 78 where the highest wind speeds weren't anything special, and were far less than along the coast. see the map:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/sandy_wi nd_speed_map_see_how_s.html

And yet everywhere trees fell and took down power lines. Why? pictures here:

http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-happen ed-to-power.html

The trees are rotten on the inside.
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Wow..You sure make life complicated..... Guess I won't ask you any more questions. Sorry to make "me" think


Well... I'm simply asking if anyone knows why Hurr Warnings were not issued for the east coast. If you don't know the answer to a question just don't answer the post. Sorry you wasted your time. I'd appreciate if you'd stop wasting mine (and others) by providing argumentative non-answers.

Does anyone know the answer? What's the blog concensus? Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?
Quoting biff4ugo:
NYC threat level

1 roach
2 Mosquito
3 Feral Cat
4 Rabid Dog
5 Subway Sewer Rat
6 Bronx Zoo Python
7 Sewer Alligator
8 Godzilla


Oh and...

9 Day after tomorrow
10 Chuck Norris
11 Bruce Willis and Chuck Norris.

With the media playing the "day after tomorrow" tsunami clip so much, I wonder how many people are going to remember that as what happened in NYC due to Sandy, especially the kids.
Can't help wondering how many "hurricane-based" weather nerds have no idea that non-tropical, deep, spinning lows cause surge and hurricane force wind on a regular basis across this globe. Yes, Sandy had the aspects of a warm-core system, but even if it had not, the result of a 946mb low coming into the east coast where it did would have been similar to what happened the past couple days. You might want to take a look at some of the Gulf of Alaska lows and east Pacific lows that have made "landfall" in western North America the past 100 years. People prepare for these storms the same way you'd prepare for a hurricane.

And, the main factor in property damage and casualties, as always, is population and infrastructure in the path of weather, earthquake, fire... you name it, Bueller.
Quoting MechEngMet:


Well... I'm simply asking if anyone knows why Hurr Warnings were not issued for the east coast. If you don't know the answer to a question just don't answer the post. Sorry you wasted your time. I'd appreciate if you'd stop wasting mine (and others) by providing argumentative non-answers.

Does anyone know the answer? What's the blog concensus? Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?
Storm and surge warnings were issued well in advance of this system. Reading back to earlier comments this morning will give you a good idea what some wu bloggers think about how the warnings were issued.
.thanks for the hint about the space in the links.
807. yoboi
Quoting presslord:
Cuba has a VERY effective pre-disaster relocation protocol...they stick a gun in your face and say "Get on the bus...or we'll kill your ass!" Works like a charm...


did not know ya support the brown shirts.....
Quoting MechEngMet:


Well... I'm simply asking if anyone knows why Hurr Warnings were not issued for the east coast. If you don't know the answer to a question just don't answer the post. Sorry you wasted your time. I'd appreciate if you'd stop wasting mine (and others) by providing argumentative non-answers.

Does anyone know the answer? What's the blog concensus? Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?


Well, maybe because it wasn't a hurricane. It was an extratropical hybrid storm being driven by both tropical and baroclinic forces. As such, the NHC may have deemed it someone else's responsibility.
Quoting biff4ugo:
FYI Wit, neither of those links worked for me.


Just an aside for you biff..
When links are posted directly to the page,WU adds a space..
Don't know why that is but they do..
Look for the blank space in the link,remove it and try again..
Hope that helps you..
Works for me.. :)
I think the reason they didn't issue the warnings is the same reason they don't issue a red tide warning when the toxic stinging algae keeping folks out of the water is actully brown.
Quoting MechEngMet:
Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?


The warnings I saw for the east coast were numerous, specific, and (in retrospect) accurate.
Quoting MechEngMet:


Well... I'm simply asking if anyone knows why Hurr Warnings were not issued for the east coast. If you don't know the answer to a question just don't answer the post. Sorry you wasted your time. I'd appreciate if you'd stop wasting mine (and others) by providing argumentative non-answers.

Does anyone know the answer? What's the blog concensus? Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?


And there are explanations in the comments Dr. Master's earlier posts in October. The NHC doesn't include storms after they go extratropical even though I believe the consenus is that Sandy may have stayed tropical.
Quoting yoboi:


did not know ya support the brown shirts.....


Really?!?! seriously?!?!?! didn't say I supported them....only that they're effective....
I will say I find it rather convenient that right at the last minute up until landfall when the thing was literally 3 miles from the coast, the NHC declares it extra-tropical.

Perhaps they knew they crapped the bed for not issuing hurricane warnings for the NJ and NY coastline and were trying at the last minute to absolve themselves of responsibility....
Quoting biff4ugo:


Oh and...

9 Day after tomorrow
10 Chuck Norris
11 Bruce Willis and Chuck Norris.

With the media playing the "day after tomorrow" tsunami clip so much, I wonder how many people are going to remember that as what happened in NYC due to Sandy, especially the kids.


So I quess yall don't get the giant floating balls of fire ants. That and the snakes always rank high in Houston maybe above rats but we have those nutria things too.
Quoting MechEngMet:


Well... I'm simply asking if anyone knows why Hurr Warnings were not issued for the east coast. If you don't know the answer to a question just don't answer the post. Sorry you wasted your time. I'd appreciate if you'd stop wasting mine (and others) by providing argumentative non-answers.

Does anyone know the answer? What's the blog concensus? Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?


Forecast discussion states: TO AVOID A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE CHANGE FROM TROPICAL TO NON-TROPICAL WARNINGS WHEN SANDY BECOMES POST-TROPICAL...THE WIND HAZARD NORTH OF THE TROPICAL STORM WARNING AREA WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONVEYED THROUGH HIGH WIND WATCHES AND
WARNINGS ISSUED BY LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICES.


I doubt many people understood the wording. However, there was yet a PDF on the NHC website explaining it more in detail, see Link (PDF). (edited)
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Can't help wondering how many "hurricane-based" weather nerds have no idea that non-tropical, deep, spinning lows cause surge and hurricane force wind on a regular basis across this globe. Yes, Sandy had the aspects of a warm-core system, but even if it had not, the result of a 946mb low coming into the east coast where it did would have been similar to what happened the past couple days. You might want to take a look at some of the Gulf of Alaska lows and east Pacific lows that have made "landfall" in western North America the past 100 years. People prepare for these storms the same way you'd prepare for a hurricane.

And, the main factor in property damage and casualties, as always, is population and infrastructure in the path of weather, earthquake, fire... you name it, Bueller.Storm and surge warnings were issued well in advance of this system. Reading back to earlier comments this morning will give you a good idea what some wu bloggers think about how the warnings were issued.



Thanks BareFootOTR.
I am well aware that lows especially in the 950 range can cause all kinds of havoc. The low does not care one wit weather or not we mere humans deign to call it a hurricane, typhoon, or whatever.
I am also aware that high wind warnings, high surf/surge warnings, and even blizzard warnings (inland) were issued. I didn't recall ever seeing or hearing the word "Hurricane" used in any of the warnings. I was wondering why that might have been the case, or if I had missed an official statement that did contain the word 'hurricane'. Again, thanks... (I'll go back a few pages and see what I can find.)
818. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
That would be nice. The problem is that efforts to "slow or stop the change"--especially in the U.S.--are being fought tooth and nail by forces insistent on maintaining the fossil fuel-only paradigm as long as they can. And those forces, via their very deep pockets, have so far managed to convince a large-enough group of policymakers that change isn't happening. And thus we find ourselves at a standstill: science vs. ideology; common sense vs. hundreds of billions in annual profits. Right vs. (very) wrong.
prove what your saying....
Quoting MechEngMet:


Well... I'm simply asking if anyone knows why Hurr Warnings were not issued for the east coast. If you don't know the answer to a question just don't answer the post. Sorry you wasted your time. I'd appreciate if you'd stop wasting mine (and others) by providing argumentative non-answers.

Does anyone know the answer? What's the blog concensus? Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?



Because Sandy is expected to make this transition before reaching the coast, the NWS has
been using non-tropical wind watches and warnings, issued by local NWS Weather Forecast
Offices (WFOs), to communicate the wind threat posed by Sandy in the Mid-Atlantic States and
New England. (This is why NHC’s tropical storm warnings extend only into North Carolina.)
The NWS plans to continue using non-tropical watches and warnings issued by local offices in
the Mid-Atlantic States and northward throughout this event. By using non-tropical warnings in
these areas from the start, we avoid or minimize the significant confusion that could occur if the
warning suite changed from tropical to non-tropical in the middle of the event.


Link



An ambulance is stuck in over a foot of snow off of Highway 33 West, near Belington, W.Va. on Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012, in Belington, W.Va. Superstorm Sandy buried parts of West Virginia under more than a foot of snow on Tuesday, cutting power to at least 264,000 customers and closing dozens of roads. At least one death was reported. The storm not only hit higher elevations hard as predicted, communities in lower elevations got much more than the dusting of snow forecasters had first thought from a dangerous system that also brought significant rainfall, high wind gusts and small-stream flooding. (AP Photo/Robert Ray)

Quoting bappit:

I agree with both of you. The sea wall did work. It blocked the waves that would have destroyed the structures people were in. Also, yes, Galveston was lucky Ike turned or the death toll would have been far higher since the worst wind and surge went further north. Structures would have been destroyed despite the protection from the sea wall. I think Bolivar Peninsula was toast either way.

Personally, I would have left the island and not taken my chances. The island flooded anyway--seawall or not. A flood like that leaves people helpless against whatever comes on top of it.


You are correct in that the seawall did its job. Remember, Galveston is an island. The flooding occurred from the back part of the island along the bay towards the seawall. The water basically went around the seawall. If you go back and look at TV reports places like the airport and Harborside Drive were among the first to flood. Those places are along the bay and Offats Bayou - not along the seawall.
4 dead, 5 missing as cyclone Nilam hits Tamil Nadu, Andhra
Posted on November 1, 2012
November 1, 2012 – CHENNAI, India – Fifteen sailors were today rescued and a search was on for six other missing crew who were on board an oil tanker that drifted and ran aground off the city coast in high velocity winds before the landfall of cyclone ‘Nilam.’ Around 6.30 AM, 15 people who were stranded on board the vessel were safely rescued by the Coast Guard, Chennai Port Trust officials told PTI. A search, involving the Navy and Coast Guard is on for the missing six persons, the officials said. The vessel ‘Pratibha Cauvery,’ with 37 crewmen on board, ran aground near Elliott’s Beach in South Chennai, about 200 metres away from the shore. One crew member drowned after a life boat carrying him and his 21 colleagues capsized in choppy waters while 15 others were rescued with the help of several agencies including Navy and local fishermen yesterday. The ship belonged to Mumbai-based Pratibha Shipping Company. Two persons were killed in Tamil Nadu as Nilam crossed the coast between Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh border yesterday without causing much damage. –Times of India
Quoting MrMixon:
My company has a small office in Manhattan. Just got a report this morning from our office manager:

"The entire southern end of Manhattan has no power. All manholes are filled with salt water and massive pumping and evaluation is being done now. The 14th st con Ed substation with an 11 ft high wall to protect it was topped with 12.5 ft of cold salt water. When the water came in it [the substation] was lost. I was in the area yesterday to assist with an emergency building pump out and can only say that the level of damage both now and to the infrastructure moving forward is difficult to describe...

Trains are still mainly off line and almost all subways are still down. Travel by car is next to impossible( I spent over 4 hours getting to southern NYC yesterday). Parking is not yet allowed and there are no traffic lights."


I am very glad to read this real time assessment of conditions in NYC. I hope many more people use this forum to help the rest of us understand what you are facing. Right now, it seems to me that is what is relevant - to focus on the challenges and status for those facing rebuilding after this storm.
Quoting ncstorm:


Because the police go house to house in those mandatory evacuation zones before the storm hits and when you tell them you are staying, you get handed your fine papers..

No, that's not how it works. Just by saying you're not leaving when the officer is at the door, you're not going to get cited. There's a little issue called probable cause, and you can't cite someone who's just not out the door yet. You can cite them if you catch them in an evacuation area after a certain time, but almost no one is going to say "I'm not leaving" and stand around waiting for you to write out a citation. They lie and then stay anyway. When it comes to disasters, we were way too busy (and generally wet) to write out citations. The easiest thing to do is just turn off the utilities. No one has to enforce anything, but everyone understands no light, heat, cooling, refrigeration and, most important, no TV, and they will leave of their own accord.
Quoting TomballTXPride:
I will say I find it rather convenient that right at the last minute up until landfall when the thing was literally 3 miles from the coast, the NHC declares it extra-tropical.

Perhaps they knew they crapped the bed and were trying at the last minute to absolve themselves of responsibility....


Thanks for the reply.
Well that does make some kind of sense as a hind sight cover-up kind of position. But the way most normal warnings read: (I paraphrase) "...area can expect hurricane conditions within 24 hours...". She was still an undisputed hurricane 24 hours out, so the warning should have been issued as such. If she were undisputed cold core or extra tropical more than 24 hours out then I could understand and accept the omission of the word 'hurricane' from the warnings.

Thanks again for the reply.
827. Fluid
Warnings...?

The media were FULL of warnings! There were a substantial number of people out there saying that it was being overblown.... too much hype!

The only conceivable way that anyone in the area did not hear of them is that they were living in the subway system's abandoned tunnels... but even then it is hard to imagine.

What more warning could you possibly ask for...? The next level would be an Old Testament Prophet subtending 15 degrees of sky, saturating the region with 100+ decibels.

Tss!~
Quoting MechEngMet:


Thanks for the reply.
Well that does make some kind of sense as a hind sight cover-up kind of position. But the way most normal warnings read: (I paraphrase) "...area can expect hurricane conditions within 24 hours...". She was still an undisputed hurricane 24 hours out, so the warning should have been issued as such. If she were undisputed cold core or extra tropical more than 24 hours out then I could understand and accept the omission of the word 'hurricane' from the warnings.

Thanks again for the reply.

NP. I look at it this way. The majority of that surge that inundated and destroyed Manhattan and the coast of NJ was the result of the storm generating this energy when it was tropical and especially during it's intensification period that brought it up to 90 MPH. Those were tropical forces at work.
Quoting MechEngMet:



Thanks BareFootOTR.
I am well aware that lows especially in the 950 range can cause all kinds of havoc. The low does not care one wit weather or not we mere humans deign to call it a hurricane, typhoon, or whatever.
I am also aware that high wind warnings, high surf/surge warnings, and even blizzard warnings (inland) were issued. I didn't recall ever seeing or hearing the word "Hurricane" used in any of the warnings. I was wondering why that might have been the case, or if I had missed an official statement that did contain the word 'hurricane'. Again, thanks... (I'll go back a few pages and see what I can find.)
YW.

BTW, It's unclear from the way that quote at 817 reads that the only part of my comment directed to you is the paragraph that begins "Storm and surge warnings were issued..."
831. Fluid
Quoting washingtonian115:
Snndy's death toll is almost 100.So far it stands at 70 and let's hope that doesn't go up.In total Sandy has already killed 130 people.


Have another drink. Then sign up for remedial arithmetic. Gah~
I see that many people thought that the weather authorities should have issued a hurricane warning. I agree because it was a hurricane up to 4 hours before landfall and a hurricane warning is the most intimidating weather warning and less people would have stayed at the shore, I think the storm was underestimated by TWC and an extreme warning wasn't given for the shore until the 5 pm advisory which by then those who stayed behind were trapped
Quoting sunlinepr:

Now that's one fake picture that's actually funny. :)
Quoting WatcherCI:
I agree with you that the storm was tropical but they made their decision on how it would be handled long before. Their forecast was for it to transition long before landfall.[...]
This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me. I completely agree that NOAA and its subsidiaries the NHC and NWS primary goal is the protection of lives and property and that the scientific task is vital but can wait for re-analysis until after the crisis has passed. NHC had to make a very tough and close call at least 36-48 hours in advance, and then stick to it until the worst danger had passed.

I do not agree with the people who are saying that anyone at NOAA did anything wrong in this situation. Both the NHC and the NWS did extremely well in the forecasting and as well as in timeliness and seriousness of warnings that were issued.

more Quoting WatcherCI :
...What if they would have posted those watches and warnings and the storm did transition and follow their forecast? Would they then pull them down? Would that not give people a false sense of being in the clear? They explained their reasoning and made a decision and stuck with it. They also where all over the media explaining the probable impacts of the storm and the fact that that there will be surge and lots of it no matter how the storm will be classified. Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Of course they could not pull down the warnings at the last minute. If they had forecast a tropical system up until landfall, then the most prudent action would have been to stick with the warnings until after the danger had passed.

I find it ironic that several people on the blog right now were arguing against me in my belief that the NHC must put the protection of life and property first when some evidence from the reconnaissance raised the possibility that Sandy had indeed strengthened to a CAT 2 as she passed over the Gulf Stream on her way to final landfall. It is only common sense that no large and potentially confusing changes should be made at the peak of the crisis, unless those changes are vital for saving lives. There is plenty of time for the details of the scientific facts to come out later in the re-analysis. In this case what had to be done was done and in my view it was done very well under very trying circumstances.

Now that the immediate crisis is past, I put more credence in the actual measurements made by the Hurricane Hunters and my own observations than I do in FSU's phase space modeling, and I do not falsely conflate the terms "eye" and "core" when I read the final vortex message that was widely dispersed over the internet. I am glad that I find at least one person out of the many people on this blog who are observant, honest, and well aware of the mission of NOAA. Thank you for allowing me the privilege to converse with you, WatcherCI, I hope you have a chance to read this. This is all I have left to say on this matter, at least for several weeks until the passions cool.

Quoting MrMixon:


The warnings I saw for the east coast were numerous, specific, and (in retrospect) accurate.


They posted "high wind warnings". For most people, the term "high wind warning" implies: nothing serious going on, just "bad weather". Take a rain coat and you're fine.
Quoting TomballTXPride:

NP. I look at it this way. The majority of that surge that inundated and destroyed Manhattan and the coast of NJ was the result of the storm generating this energy when it was tropical and especially during it's intensification period that brought it up to 90 MPH. Those were tropical forces at work.


I wholeheartedly agree. Some are now posting answers that show the NHC intent early. They expected it to go extra tropical well before landfall, and so to avoid confusion (during their forecast transition) stated they would issue future warnings without the word 'hurricane'. Yet she was arguably tropical well after landfall.

Thanks to those posters, too many to list individually at this point.

Hmmm... Eliminate the word 'hurricane' from the official warnings... eh? I know some insurance adjusters watch this site. Say y'all, What does that do to/for wind/flood/property insurance policies? ...and whose interests does that serve?
Quoting StormPro:




Excellent. I am not a denier but I think with the small data set we have it is impossible to point to man as the biggest or only cause. I wish the energy wasted on arguing ones side was placed into efforts to slow or stop the change


Of course we cannot slow or stop the change if we do not know why it is happening or the mechanisms behind it. Because we know that it mostly (if not completely) due to human activities, we know the steps we must take to mitigate the problem.
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Media is bi-polar sometimes. For the last few years they rarely talk about climate change. Then an event happens and they freak out, talking about climate change too much. That provides the perception that scientists/media/whomever believe that a single event was somehow caused by climate change. This is not true. It is also not true to say that today's weather is not related to climate change.

We need to put the breaks on this sensationalist "Was Sandy caused by climate change?" talk and focus on what the science of climate actually tells us: Sandy-like disasters may increase in severity and frequency, and flood/drought disasters are expected to increase in severity and frequency. This increase will cost money and lives that would not have been lost were the climate change not to occur.

On the other hand, we need to really think twice about criticizing the timing for addressing this issue. When else will it be addressed? We've had years - if not - decades of knowing what was in store before it started becoming part of the observations instead of just the forecasts, and did little-to-nothing. Unfortunately, that's the way it works sometimes... takes a big event to motivate people to do the thing they wouldn't be pro-active about in the first place.


On the other hand, those who are using Sandy to "rally' people to understand the issue of Climate Change, could also be causing a problem. My experience with most people, is that they are weary of how often these disasters are being blamed on Climate Change. While most may not understand the science, people do have enough intuition to know that, we really do not know if these events are the result, only that they could be and that in general, more of them could arrive. Therefore, people can't help but then feel like an agenda is being forced on them. When I was younger, before I actually knew and understood the science, I threw out Climate Change as even being possible by man at all because there are many who take the science and add over-the-top claims of fact to it.

Could Sandy be the result of Climate Change? Sure, do we know for sure, no, we don't. We shouldn't then worry that people won't take it seriously enough based on that, and thus add to what is true.


We must get back the basics, and remind ourselves just how much of the world is based entirely around fossil fuels and other forms of pollution. One cannot just make it all disappear within a few years, unless of course you want to collapse the modern world as we know it, throwing it into chaos. Personally though, I find those results to be worse than any benefits of immediately changing everything. People must not be forced, but must be encouraged to be more environmentally conscious. I have already changed some people I know regarding recycling and using more efficient renewable sources.



Quoting Fluid:
Warnings...?

The media were FULL of warnings! There were a substantial number of people out there saying that it was being overblown.... too much hype!

The only conceivable way that anyone in the area did not hear of them is that they were living in the subway system's abandoned tunnels... but even then it is hard to imagine.

What more warning could you possibly ask for...? The next level would be an Old Testament Prophet subtending 15 degrees of sky, saturating the region with 100+ decibels.

Tss!~


The media? Feh! The media was creating terms like superstorm and megastorm and drew comparisons to other events like snowmageddon and snowtember. That's not taking warning seriously. And they're hyping it, rather saying, they underhyped it by showing that "Day after tomorrow" clip all the time which everyone understood it would not happen so many assumed nothing would happen. Including Mr. Bloomberg.
Quoting MechEngMet:


Well... I'm simply asking if anyone knows why Hurr Warnings were not issued for the east coast. If you don't know the answer to a question just don't answer the post. Sorry you wasted your time. I'd appreciate if you'd stop wasting mine (and others) by providing argumentative non-answers.

Does anyone know the answer? What's the blog concensus? Why were storm warnings not issued for the east coast?
Mech.Honestly.Did I really waste your time.I think not...... You were here anyway.
Quoting sar2401:

No, that's not how it works. Just by saying you're not leaving when the officer is at the door, you're not going to get cited. There's a little issue called probable cause, and you can't cite someone who's just not out the door yet. You can cite them if you catch them in an evacuation area after a certain time, but almost no one is going to say "I'm not leaving" and stand around waiting for you to write out a citation. They lie and then stay anyway. When it comes to disasters, we were way too busy (and generally wet) to write out citations. The easiest thing to do is just turn off the utilities. No one has to enforce anything, but everyone understands no light, heat, cooling, refrigeration and, most important, no TV, and they will leave of their own accord.


You dont live in NC so how would you know how it works?

Not so easy as you think..

Hundreds of public housing tenants defy evacuation orders, choosing to wait out Hurricane Sandy in buildings without elevators, heat or hot water

Quoting ARiot:


It's not a small data set. It's probably larger than any other modern, developed theory with empirical evidence. None of that science suggests man is the only cause.


Actually, that's not quite accurate. Current estimates are that humans are likely causing from roughly 75-125% of the observed warming. That ranges from "most of the warming" to "causing virtually all of the warming and also completely overwhelming a natural cooling trend." There is scientific evidence to suggest that when only natural factors are taken into account, the climate would be slowly changing in a cooling direction since about 1950.
Quoting MechEngMet:


Thanks for the reply.
Well that does make some kind of sense as a hind sight cover-up kind of position. But the way most normal warnings read: (I paraphrase) "...area can expect hurricane conditions within 24 hours...". She was still an undisputed hurricane 24 hours out, so the warning should have been issued as such. If she were undisputed cold core or extra tropical more than 24 hours out then I could understand and accept the omission of the word 'hurricane' from the warnings.

Thanks again for the reply.

We have beat this to death.
Quoting Matthias1967:


They posted "high wind warnings". For most people, the term "high wind warning" implies: nothing serious going on, just "bad weather". Take a rain coat and you're fine.
People on the Atlantic Seaboard are quite familiar with storms. I believe that the people who did not follow the warnings that were given ( regardless of how the advisories were worded ) knew the risks.HURRICANE SANDY FORECAST/ADVISORY NUMBER 30
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL AL182012
2100 UTC MON OCT 29 2012

CHANGES IN WATCHES AND WARNINGS WITH THIS ADVISORY...

ALL TROPICAL STORM WARNINGS FOR EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA HAVE BEEN
DISCONTINUED.

SUMMARY OF WATCHES AND WARNINGS IN EFFECT...

THERE ARE NO COASTAL TROPICAL CYCLONE WARNINGS IN EFFECT.

HOWEVER...THERE ARE NON-TROPICAL HIGH-WIND WARNINGS IN EFFECT FOR
PORTIONS OF THE MID-ATLANTIC AND NEW ENGLAND STATES. PLEASE SEE
STATEMENTS FROM LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORECAST OFFICES.

HURRICANE-FORCE WINDS ARE EXPECTED ALONG PORTIONS OF THE COAST
BETWEEN CHINCOTEAGUE VIRGINIA AND CHATHAM MASSACHUSETTS. THIS
INCLUDES THE TIDAL POTOMAC FROM COBB ISLAND TO SMITH POINT... THE
MIDDLE AND UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY...DELAWARE BAY...AND THE COASTS OF
THE NORTHERN DELMARVA PENINSULA...NEW JERSEY...THE NEW YORK CITY
AREA...LONG ISLAND...CONNECTICUT...AND RHODE ISLAND.

TROPICAL-STORM-FORCE WINDS ARE EXPECTED NORTH OF CHATHAM TO
MERRIMACK RIVER MASSACHUSETTS...THE LOWER CHESAPEAKE BAY...AND
SOUTH OF CHINCOTEAGUE TO EXTREME NORTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA.

HURRICANE CENTER LOCATED NEAR 38.8N 74.4W AT 29/2100Z
POSITION ACCURATE WITHIN 20 NM

PRESENT MOVEMENT TOWARD THE WEST-NORTHWEST OR 300 DEGREES AT 24 KT

ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE 940 MB
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS 80 KT WITH GUSTS TO 100 KT.
64 KT....... 0NE 80SE 150SW 0NW.
50 KT.......170NE 150SE 200SW 150NW.
34 KT.......420NE 370SE 400SW 200NW.
12 FT SEAS..660NE 995SE 660SW 180NW.
WINDS AND SEAS VARY GREATLY IN EACH QUADRANT. RADII IN NAUTICAL
MILES ARE THE LARGEST RADII EXPECTED ANYWHERE IN THAT QUADRANT.

REPEAT...CENTER LOCATED NEAR 38.8N 74.4W AT 29/2100Z
AT 29/1800Z CENTER WAS LOCATED NEAR 38.3N 73.1W

FORECAST VALID 30/0600Z 39.8N 76.6W...POST-TROP/EXTRATROP
MAX WIND 65 KT...GUSTS 80 KT.
64 KT... 0NE 60SE 60SW 0NW.
50 KT...150NE 150SE 100SW 80NW.
34 KT...400NE 370SE 200SW 160NW.

FORECAST VALID 30/1800Z 40.4N 78.3W...POST-TROP/EXTRATROP
MAX WIND 50 KT...GUSTS 60 KT.
50 KT... 0NE 40SE 0SW 0NW.
34 KT...400NE 370SE 150SW 100NW.

FORECAST VALID 31/0600Z 41.3N 78.2W...POST-TROP/EXTRATROP
MAX WIND 40 KT...GUSTS 50 KT.
34 KT...360NE 360SE 100SW 60NW.
845. Fluid
Quoting Matthias1967:


They posted "high wind warnings". For most people, the term "high wind warning" implies: nothing serious going on, just "bad weather". Take a rain coat and you're fine.


C'mon! Lookit, kid! Ya got lucky and Darwin's Law spared ya this one time. To flaunt the fact is really pushing it!

846. CJ5
Had a hurricane warning stayed in place, it may have motivated people more but that is arm-chair quarterbacking. They followed normal protocol.

All of that being said, ample warning was issued. There was plenty of time for people to act and anyone caught in the storm unprepared have only themselves to blame. You can only do so much to warn people.
Quoting sar2401:

No, that's not how it works. Just by saying you're not leaving when the officer is at the door, you're not going to get cited. There's a little issue called probable cause, and you can't cite someone who's just not out the door yet. You can cite them if you catch them in an evacuation area after a certain time, but almost no one is going to say "I'm not leaving" and stand around waiting for you to write out a citation. They lie and then stay anyway. When it comes to disasters, we were way too busy (and generally wet) to write out citations. The easiest thing to do is just turn off the utilities. No one has to enforce anything, but everyone understands no light, heat, cooling, refrigeration and, most important, no TV, and they will leave of their own accord.


Turning of utilities also means: no fire, no explosions, and avoiding most damages on the utility net.
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Mech.Honestly.Did I really waste your time.I think not...... You were here anyway.

Let it go, PBW. Seriously.
849. yoboi
Quoting Jedkins01:


On the other hand, those who are using Sandy to "rally' people to understand the issue of Climate Change, could also be causing a problem. My experience with most people, is that they are weary of how often these disasters are being blamed on Climate Change. While most may not understand the science, people do have enough intuition to know that, we really do not know if these events are the result, only that they could be and that in general, more of them could arrive. Therefore, people can't help but then feel like an agenda is being forced on them. When I was younger, before I actually knew and understood the science, I threw out Climate Change as even being possible by man at all because there are many who take the science and add over-the-top claims of fact to it.

Could Sandy be the result of Climate Change? Sure, do we know for sure, no, we don't. We shouldn't then worry that people won't take it seriously enough based on that, and thus add to what is true.


We must get back the basics, and remind ourselves just how much of the world is based entirely around fossil fuels and other forms of pollution. One cannot just make it all disappear within a few years, unless of course you want to collapse the modern world as we know it, throwing it into chaos. Personally though, I find those results to be worse than any benefits of immediately changing everything. People must not be forced, but must be encouraged to be more environmentally conscious. I have already changed some people I know regarding recycling and using more efficient renewable sources.


after the 2005 season people were saying due to climate change to expect majors to hitt the USA more often.....when was the last time the USA got hitt by a major???
Quoting yoboi:


after the 2005 season people were saying due to climate change to expect majors to hitt the USA more often.....when was the last time the USA got hitt by a major???

Just more knee-jerk reactions by the usual talking heads. Take it for what's its worth.
C&P

Among the smaller but still important casualties of Hurricane Sandy were thousands of laboratory rodents, genetically altered for use in the study of heart disease, cancer and mental disorders like autism and schizophrenia, that drowned in basement rooms at a New York University research center in Kips Bay

The collection of carefully-bred rodents was considered one of the largest and most valuable of its kind in the country. The animals lived in colonies in the cellar of the Smilow Research Center, on 1st Avenue near 30th Street.
Quoting yoboi:


after the 2005 season people were saying due to climate change to expect majors to hitt the USA more often.....when was the last time the USA got hitt by a major???


Gustav.
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Let it go, PBW. Seriously.
Tomball, I find it quite amusing that you of all people are trying to keep me quiet after I defended you in your "re-appearance" and your on going battles with Nea... Just a thought
854. yoboi
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Gustav.




wrong wilma....
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Gustav.
Statistically it was a cat-2. Although people that survived it probably thought it was stronger..United States

On August 31, the NHC predicted with 45% probability that Gustav would remain at Category 3 or above on September 1. This influenced preparations, although in fact Gustav had dropped just below the Category 3 threshold to Category 2 by landfall, and Category 1 shortly afterwards...WIKI
Quoting ncstorm:


You dont live in NC so how would you know how it works?

Not so easy as you think..

Hundreds of public housing tenants defy evacuation orders, choosing to wait out Hurricane Sandy in buildings without elevators, heat or hot water


Because constitutional rights apply to all states. You must have probable cause to arrest someone. If they say "I'm not leaving" when they've been given a direct, lawful order, that's enough probable cause to make an arrest (or issue a citation, which is an arrest, but you promise to appear in court). If they say "OK, I'm leaving" then don't, you can arrest them if they are caught inside an evacuation zone, but you can't just bust into a house looking for people when the violation is only a misdemeanor. If they are out wandering the streets in an evacuation zone, you can arrest them. The basic issue remains, however. There are only so many cops to go around. do you want us out rescuing people in immediate peril or hunting down citizens and writing citations?

You link didn't work for me but, assuming it's about NYC public housing, conditions are so bad that a lot of tenants wouldn't even notice if their utilities were out, since they are out so frequently. These are the poorest of the poor, and they know the police will be unable to protect what little they have from the thugs who will view evacuations as a shopping opportunity. They stay because they have very little choice. There are always exceptions to every rule, but turning off utilities will work for the vast majority of citizens, and a lot less would be dead now if they knew there would be any power for sure if they stayed.
There is also a blog and discussion of the NHC warning decision at Bryan Norcross' wu blog.

Thanks much, MrMixon, for posting the first hand account of what is happening in Manhattan.

Nice chatting with you all. Time for me to turn into a pumpkin.

WINTER WEATHER UPDATE


Possible NE storm...



click on the pick for a 4x bigger resolution risk-free

ignore it says SANDY in the upper left corner
Quoting sar2401:

Because constitutional rights apply to all states. You must have probable cause to arrest someone. If they say "I'm not leaving" when they've been given a direct, lawful order, that's enough probable cause to make an arrest (or issue a citation, which is an arrest, but you promise to appear in court). If they say "OK, I'm leaving" then don't, you can arrest them if they are caught inside an evacuation zone, but you can't just bust into a house looking for people when the violation is only a misdemeanor. If they are out wandering the streets in an evacuation zone, you can arrest them. The basic issue remains, however. There are only so many cops to go around. do you want us out rescuing people in immediate peril or hunting down citizens and writing citations?

You link didn't work for me but, assuming it's about NYC public housing, conditions are so bad that a lot of tenants wouldn't even notice if their utilities were out, since they are out so frequently. These are the poorest of the poor, and they know the police will be unable to protect what little they have from the thugs who will view evacuations as a shopping opportunity. They stay because they have very little choice. There are always exceptions to every rule, but turning off utilities will work for the vast majority of citizens, and a lot less would be dead now if they knew there would be any power for sure if they stayed.
Your on the ball today Sar..:)
Quoting Matthias1967:


They posted "high wind warnings". For most people, the term "high wind warning" implies: nothing serious going on, just "bad weather". Take a rain coat and you're fine.


To me, the term "high wind warning" implies that winds are going to be high enough to damage some structures, at least a few trees will fall, some branches are definitely going to come down, and we may lose power. For me in Colorado it also means "high fire danger"... even if they don't say it. I don't need to be told EVERYTHING. Some things I figure out for myself by paying attention.

There were also numerous flood warnings and storm surge warnings for the to-be-affected areas. When I see "high wind warning" combined with "flood warning" and headlines like "Superstorm Sandy" I know that it's not just "wear a jacket" weather. But yes, that's just me. I'm a weather nerd and I like to be prepared.

To some extent we must accept that some folks simply won't heed ANY warning. Everybody is harping on the use of the word "hurricane", but come on, every single time there is a hurricane warning there are plenty of people who stay behind anyway. It's not like that word will magically make all humans responsible.

That said, it's definitely all part of a grand conspiracy. Of course, I'm part of the conspiracy, so it doesn't bother me too much.
Wrong.
Quoting Fluid:


C'mon! Lookit, kid! Ya got lucky and Darwin's Law spared ya this one time. To flaunt the fact is really pushing it!



Note that I'm not a kid (hint: there's a number in my account name for some reason). Darwin's law so far spared me because I am using my head (and because many other reasons: from unified warning codes through all of Europe to better building codes)...

It is also interesting, that in Cuba the Sandy death toll is much lesser than in the U.S. (though there had been destroyed some 35.000 buildings, certainly much more than in the NJ and NY). It's ironic that the death toll in the U.S. is similar to that in Haiti. Appearantly something is wrong if Sandy can kill more preople in a grown up country like the U.S. than in the poorest country in the world.
Quoting Matthias1967:


Turning of utilities also means: no fire, no explosions, and avoiding most damages on the utility net.

Correct. I believe, although I have no direct knowledge, that many of the fires were caused by a combination of hot wires and leaking natural gas. I remember at least one woman who was electrocuted by a hot line while she was wandering the neighborhood taking pictures. This doesn't even take into account the serious dangers faced by first responders going into flooded areas with lines still energized.
ncstorm, true Sar doesn't live in NC, but I do. IF you are in Wilmington I am just 15 miles south of you--Carolina Beach.

Can you link me with this 'law' so I can read it. I have heard of same--but I think it says---you COULD be arrested for staying---instead of---you WILL be arrested.

IF there is a mand evac--we all know we are to stay on our OWN property. AND be able to take care of our needs for the duration. It comes down to it being a personal choice. Like it or not--

AND yes, I know--beating the ppor horse now, but I really did try to just let it go;-)
865. yoboi
Quoting sar2401:

Because constitutional rights apply to all states. You must have probable cause to arrest someone. If they say "I'm not leaving" when they've been given a direct, lawful order, that's enough probable cause to make an arrest (or issue a citation, which is an arrest, but you promise to appear in court). If they say "OK, I'm leaving" then don't, you can arrest them if they are caught inside an evacuation zone, but you can't just bust into a house looking for people when the violation is only a misdemeanor. If they are out wandering the streets in an evacuation zone, you can arrest them. The basic issue remains, however. There are only so many cops to go around. do you want us out rescuing people in immediate peril or hunting down citizens and writing citations?

You link didn't work for me but, assuming it's about NYC public housing, conditions are so bad that a lot of tenants wouldn't even notice if their utilities were out, since they are out so frequently. These are the poorest of the poor, and they know the police will be unable to protect what little they have from the thugs who will view evacuations as a shopping opportunity. They stay because they have very little choice. There are always exceptions to every rule, but turning off utilities will work for the vast majority of citizens, and a lot less would be dead now if they knew there would be any power for sure if they stayed.


your not telling the whole story they can only enforce it if they tape off the area and secure the area.....like they do in a hazmat scene.....
Quoting MrMixon:


To me, the term "high wind warning" implies that winds are going to be high enough to damage some structures, at least a few trees will fall, some branches are definitely going to come down, and we may lose power. For me in Colorado it also means "high fire danger"... even if they don't say it. I don't need to be told EVERYTHING. Some things I figure out for myself by paying attention.

There were also numerous flood warnings and storm surge warnings for the to-be-affected areas. When I see "high wind warning" combined with "flood warning" and headlines like "Superstorm Sandy" I know that it's not just "wear a jacket" weather. But yes, that's just me. I'm a weather nerd and I like to be prepared.

To some extent we must accept that some folks simply won't heed ANY warning. Everybody is harping on the use of the word "hurricane", but come on, every single time there is a hurricane warning there are plenty of people who stay behind anyway. It's not like that word will magically make all humans responsible.

That said, it's definitely all part of a grand conspiracy. Of course, I'm part of the conspiracy, so it doesn't bother me too much.


I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?
Quoting czechoslovakia:
I see that many people thought that the weather authorities should have issued a hurricane warning. I agree because it was a hurricane up to 4 hours before landfall and a hurricane warning is the most intimidating weather warning and less people would have stayed at the shore, I think the storm was underestimated by TWC and an extreme warning wasn't given for the shore until the 5 pm advisory which by then those who stayed behind were trapped
I disagree with you. the warnings were very clear on TWC. I watched it so I know. Norcross and all meteorolgists on the channel kept repeating storm surge, high winds, etc, pointing out the coast area most likely to feel the brunt. And NJ was in the target most of the time. I think the uncertainty of where it would make landfall was a good enough reason for people to not heed the advice. They kept thinking it would be another Irene. I knew last year when that storm didn't pan out for the area forcasted that something like this might occur. We see it all the time in the Keys. That one 2 years ago didn't hit and this one is coming on the same path. People just don't realize all the forces that steer hurricanes. The people who did not evacuate ignored the warnings as I did during Wilma.
Quoting Tigerosee:
ncstorm, true Sar doesn't live in NC, but I do. IF you are in Wilmington I am just 15 miles south of you--Carolina Beach.

Can you link me with this 'law' so I can read it. I have heard of same--but I think it says---you COULD be arrested for staying---instead of---you WILL be arrested.

IF there is a mand evac--we all know we are to stay on our OWN property. AND be able to take care of our needs for the duration. It comes down to it being a personal choice. Like it or not--

AND yes, I know--beating the ppor horse now, but I really did try to just let it go;-)


I didnt say arrested..I said fined..Let me see if I can find it..I posted it earlier this year on the blog when the news outlets were reporting it here in NC
Quoting hydrus:
Your on the ball today Sar..:)

I don't know about on the ball, but 27 years of law enforcement and search and rescue work did teach me a few things. :) I know for sure what doesn't work, and having us going out and arresting people doesn't work. I'm not sure why turning off utilities is such a hard concept to understand. It just takes some pre-planning on the part of utilities and emergency management. We got really good at this in California during the days of rolling blackouts, so it's not technically all that difficult.
Quoting StormPro:

I'm sorry if I don't understand but I'm speaking of the actual, concrete set of data...not supposed or assumed.

The data that scientists are using to determine conclusions on matters of climate science are actual sets of data, not supposed/assumed/made-up. Such data sets, well, wouldn't actually be data.
Quoting StormPro:


Someone on here, quiet respected by most on here as a matter of fact, said just a couple days ago that artic sea ice was at an 8,000 year low...I asked for a link to proof of this statement and got no [reply].


Here is a nice starting point if you want more information on reconstructions of Arctic sea ice:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/f ull/nature10581.html
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_ seaice_QSR_10.pdf

You might also find Google helpful for looking up scientific papers:
scholar.google.com
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
WINTER WEATHER UPDATE


Possible NE storm...



click on the pick for a 4x bigger resolution risk-free


I hope they are able to set up a organized enough effort to be able to take the brunt of whatever materializes out of that. Even a moderate 6-12" snow storm could wreck all kinds of havoc to a gutted infrastructure.
New York Aquarium may have to evacuate 12,000 creatures if power isn't restored to the facility soon - @CrainsNewYork
Quoting Matthias1967:


Note that I'm not a kid (hint: there's a number in my account name for some reason). Darwin's law so far spared me because I am using my head (and because many other reasons: from unified warning codes through all of Europe to better building codes)...

It is also interesting, that in Cuba the Sandy death toll is much lesser than in the U.S. (though there had been destroyed some 35.000 buildings, certainly much more than in the NJ and NY). It's ironic that the death toll in the U.S. is similar to that in Haiti. Appearantly something is wrong if Sandy can kill more preople in a grown up country like the U.S. than in the poorest country in the world.


Haiti only got rain bands.
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The data that scientists are using to determine conclusions on matters of climate science are actual sets of data, not supposed/assumed/made-up. Such data sets, well, wouldn't actually be data.


Here is a nice starting point if you want more information on reconstructions of Arctic sea ice:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/f ull/nature10581.html
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_ seaice_QSR_10.pdf

You might also find Google helpful for looking up scientific papers:
scholar.google.com



Thanks!
Quoting MechEngMet:


Has anyone figured out exactly why hurricane warnings and watches were not issued for the east coast?... Anyone... Anyone...? Bueler???

Nothing to "figure out" really. Here is the scientific justification used at the time to determine the best watches and warnings for the situation:
https://www.facebook.com/US.NOAA.NationalHurrican eCenter.gov/posts/417921838273302

As usual with big events, this will likely be re-evaluated with a post-storm service assessment.
Quoting yoboi:


your not telling the whole story they can only enforce it if they tape off the area and secure the area.....like they do in a hazmat scene.....

That's where I can't say how it works from state to state. I only have experience in California. As long as an area was declared a disaster area, mandatory evacuation zone, or crime scene, and the information was published, any civilian remaining in the area was subject to arrest. There was no tape needed, although we obviously tried to close of access to the area the best we could. In real life, we warned people and escorted them out of the area, assuming they weren't commiting any other crime. If we caught you in the area a second time, you went to jail. Other states have different laws about how a disaster areas and manditory evacuation areas are declared, so I can only speak with authority about California.
Thank you ncstorm. To me fine or arrested means about the same thing. When it comes to be told I HAVE to leave my own property.

FWIW, there is far too much to do here for PD to come door to door---FD comes thru with loud speaker----

More stay here than leave. We know like with Floyd and Fran--it wasn't a choice--had to leave----

Quoting yoboi:


after the 2005 season people were saying due to climate change to expect majors to hitt the USA more often.....when was the last time the USA got hitt by a major???


7 years does not a climate make... and especially not for smaller datasets like tropical activity.
880. yoboi
Quoting sar2401:

That's where I can't say how it works from state to state. I only have experience in California. As long as an area was declared a disaster area, mandatory evacuation zone, or crime scene, and the information was published, any civilian remaining in the area was subject to arrest. There was no tape needed, although we obviously tried to close of access to the area the best we could. In real life, we warned people and escorted them out of the area, assuming they weren't commiting any other crime. If we caught you in the area a second time, you went to jail. Other states have different laws about how a disaster areas and manditory evacuation areas are declared, so I can only speak with authority about California.



oh ok i live in louisiana and we have to secure scene then can arrest but right before a storm don't have the resources to do that.....
Quoting hydrus:

HURRICANE-FORCE WINDS ARE EXPECTED ALONG PORTIONS OF THE COAST
BETWEEN CHINCOTEAGUE VIRGINIA AND CHATHAM MASSACHUSETTS. THIS
INCLUDES THE TIDAL POTOMAC FROM COBB ISLAND TO SMITH POINT... THE
MIDDLE AND UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY...DELAWARE BAY...AND THE COASTS OF
THE NORTHERN DELMARVA PENINSULA...NEW JERSEY...THE NEW YORK CITY
AREA...LONG ISLAND...CONNECTICUT...AND RHODE ISLAND.

TROPICAL-STORM-FORCE WINDS ARE EXPECTED NORTH OF CHATHAM TO
MERRIMACK RIVER MASSACHUSETTS...THE LOWER CHESAPEAKE BAY...AND
SOUTH OF CHINCOTEAGUE TO EXTREME NORTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA.



And so what? Hurricane-force means that there are winds equivalently to 12 Beaufort (Link). What happens at the coast at least a dozen of times each winter... for many people nothing serious.
Homeowners dodge Sandy deductibles, face other costs

Excerpt:


(Reuters) - When the National Hurricane Center declared Sandy a "post-tropical storm" just before it made landfall, a lot of homeowners across New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Maryland may have saved a lot of money. The governors of these states have told insurance companies that because the storm was not classified as a hurricane, the insurers can't enforce costly hurricane deductibles on storm-related claims.
Quoting MechEngMet:


I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?
Are you saying because they didn't say Hurricane that you can't claim on your wind policy? Well, I would love for them not to call a hurricane a hurricane here in Florida. We have an extra large deductable if it is a hurricane. Any other wind problem (tornado) does not fall under the same deductable. So what harm does it do. Nada. What will really come into play is when the people with their wind coverage try to collect and the insurance company says, no it was flood. And flood will say, no it was wind.
884. yoboi
Quoting ScottLincoln:


7 years does not a climate make... and especially not for smaller datasets like tropical activity.


just going by what everyone was saying after 2005 season.....have not seen the majors like they were saying...
Quoting Tigerosee:
Thank you ncstorm. To me fine or arrested means about the same thing. When it comes to be told I HAVE to leave my own property.

FWIW, there is far too much to do here for PD to come door to door---FD comes thru with loud speaker----

More stay here than leave. We know like with Floyd and Fran--it wasn't a choice--had to leave----



yeah..I think they are following Texas who if Im not mistaken will arrest you but I could be wrong on that one but I know they have a similar law with harsher consequences..
Quoting sar2401:

Because constitutional rights apply to all states. You must have probable cause to arrest someone. If they say "I'm not leaving" when they've been given a direct, lawful order, that's enough probable cause to make an arrest (or issue a citation, which is an arrest, but you promise to appear in court). If they say "OK, I'm leaving" then don't, you can arrest them if they are caught inside an evacuation zone, but you can't just bust into a house looking for people when the violation is only a misdemeanor. If they are out wandering the streets in an evacuation zone, you can arrest them. The basic issue remains, however. There are only so many cops to go around. do you want us out rescuing people in immediate peril or hunting down citizens and writing citations?

You link didn't work for me but, assuming it's about NYC public housing, conditions are so bad that a lot of tenants wouldn't even notice if their utilities were out, since they are out so frequently. These are the poorest of the poor, and they know the police will be unable to protect what little they have from the thugs who will view evacuations as a shopping opportunity. They stay because they have very little choice. There are always exceptions to every rule, but turning off utilities will work for the vast majority of citizens, and a lot less would be dead now if they knew there would be any power for sure if they stayed.


I didnt say ARREST..I said fined
Quoting MechEngMet:


I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?

What is the impact of omitting 'hurricane'? I thought it worked in the homeowner's favor at least in New York where the additional hurricane deductible won't be enforced...

Good afternoon. This is an interesting satellite loop of TS Rosa showing how 20kts of shear acts on a cyclone. Watch how the main thunderstorm complex doesn't move at all from beginning to end but the center is clearly moving west, especially in the last couple frames:

Quoting sar2401:

Because constitutional rights apply to all states. You must have probable cause to arrest someone. If they say "I'm not leaving" when they've been given a direct, lawful order, that's enough probable cause to make an arrest (or issue a citation, which is an arrest, but you promise to appear in court). If they say "OK, I'm leaving" then don't, you can arrest them if they are caught inside an evacuation zone, but you can't just bust into a house looking for people when the violation is only a misdemeanor. If they are out wandering the streets in an evacuation zone, you can arrest them. The basic issue remains, however. There are only so many cops to go around. do you want us out rescuing people in immediate peril or hunting down citizens and writing citations?

You link didn't work for me but, assuming it's about NYC public housing, conditions are so bad that a lot of tenants wouldn't even notice if their utilities were out, since they are out so frequently. These are the poorest of the poor, and they know the police will be unable to protect what little they have from the thugs who will view evacuations as a shopping opportunity. They stay because they have very little choice. There are always exceptions to every rule, but turning off utilities will work for the vast majority of citizens, and a lot less would be dead now if they knew there would be any power for sure if they stayed.


the link worked for me and no it didnt say they wouldnt notice that their utilities were out..LOL..I tell ya..its not so easy for someone to evacuate which this article explains..
Quoting
THANKS ncstorm--you COULD be fined. Not a lot of meat in it for a reason I guess. I used to work at WPD and have some idea of how it goes with the wording.

Take care--


ncstorm:

<
em>Here you go Tigerose..from WECT

New law means you could face fines if you ignore a mandatory evacuation
Quoting ILwthrfan:


I hope they are able to set up a organized enough effort to be able to take the brunt of whatever materializes out of that. Even a moderate 6-12" snow storm could wreck all kinds of havoc to a gutted infrastructure.
Even rain, especially rain. I knew a man who had a hole in his roof after Wilma. Well, it is very hard to find anyone to fix anything after a hurricane. A week later we had a deluge which totally ruined his home. Because he did not mitigate the damages the insurance company totally disallowed any claim from the damage to the inside. So everyone with a hole or two in your roof, get some tarps and nail them down. Snow and possibly rain is coming.
Quoting ncstorm:


I didnt say arrested..I said fined..Let me see if I can find it..I posted it earlier this year on the blog when the news outlets were reporting it here in NC


Here ya go ncstorm. The article states residents could be levied a fine of $1000

Link

EDIT: I see you're a step ahead of me.
Quoting MechEngMet:


I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?


Actually Darwin cares... it was the HMS Beagle en route with Mr. Darwin on which the Beaufort scale firstly was used, including the grade hurricane force later commonly known as BF 12. :P
894. yoboi
Quoting ScottLincoln:


7 years does not a climate make... and especially not for smaller datasets like tropical activity.



and i also agree with the new term climate change; climate does change it goes in cycles....
Quoting Tigerosee:


You're welcome!
Quoting SarasotaToo:

What is the impact of omitting 'hurricane'? I thought it worked in the homeowner's favor at least in New York where the additional hurricane deductible won't be enforced...

He must be a lawyer for the insurance companies.
Quoting yoboi:


after the 2005 season people were saying due to climate change to expect majors to hitt the USA more often.....when was the last time the USA got hitt by a major???


"People" may have been saying that. Show us a single climatologist that said any such thing. The climatologists were saying that a warming atmosphere will hold more moisture and this has a potential for stronger hurricanes. None of them said it would raise the potential for land falling events and therefore none would have targeted the U.S. for having a greater number of land falling hurricanes.

You want to win the day for the denial industry? This could quite easily be done, IF you could show us the tested science that would invalidate the AGWT. Yes, I know, that is too hard to do so just don't even try. Right? It is far easier to instill doubt and confusion through misrepresentations and false illusions. I am starting to notice that the public is beginning to catch on as to which side is the perpetrator of the hoax. The perpetrators are not the scientist, but the denial industry. So, is this the denial industry's last big push into battle before losing their war based on lies? Did you think you had more time before the denial industry's hoax was exposed? Yes, we all originally thought that too. Now, not so much. Time is running out and more people are starting to realize this!

Your accusations are baseless without the evidence to support them, yoboi! Unless you just wish to stick to the claim that "people" were the ones saying this and not the scientific community itself, in which case, you are probably correct.
Quoting yoboi:



and i also agree with the new term climate change; climate does change it goes in cycles....
It's not a "new term"; it's been around since 1975--four years before cell phones and Roller Blades were invented. FYI.
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
Quoting StAugustineFL:


Here ya go ncstorm. The articles states residents could be levied a fine of $1000

Link

An even better link, with the law and possible consequences discussed by an attorney.

NC Evac Law Discussed
Quoting sar2401:

I don't know about on the ball, but 27 years of law enforcement and search and rescue work did teach me a few things. :) I know for sure what doesn't work, and having us going out and arresting people doesn't work. I'm not sure why turning off utilities is such a hard concept to understand. It just takes some pre-planning on the part of utilities and emergency management. We got really good at this in California during the days of rolling blackouts, so it's not technically all that difficult.
I like the idea of shutting off utilities. By now most people living on the coast and other regions subject to natural disasters must realize that there are certain consequences for living where they do. If danger is imminent, cutting utilities not only protects expensive and vital equipment, but makes some people realize how serious the danger could be( they loose money when killing the power ). I been through many storms, the power is usually lost anyway, and could be restored to folks quicker if it was shut off in the first place.... Just my harmless opinion.
Looks like hurricane deductibles will not be an issue.

Homeowners spared costly hurricane deductible

Most homeowners along the East Coast won't have to pay potentially huge hurricane deductibles before insurance coverage kicks in for damage caused by Tropical Storm Sandy, say state officials.

...

Although Sandy was designated a hurricane for the majority of time it traveled up the coast, it failed to sustain hurricane-force winds at landfall, so it was officially a tropical storm. That means homeowners in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Maryland won't be on the hook for costly hurricane deductibles, and state officials are putting insurers on notice.
Quoting MechEngMet:
Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?


As I said, I'm part of the conspiracy. So, yes I could tell you, but no I will not.

But remember... it's definitely a conspiracy and it was definitely not based on any of the data or analyses posted numerous times by my co-conspirators here.

Quoting yoboi:



and i also agree with the new term climate change; climate does change it goes in cycles....


If you're implying that the climate change we're seeing now is part of a natural cycle please do educate us as to which cycle is causing it. Scientists who study this topic professionally have ruled out all natural cycles, so I'm guessing you've got some pretty awesome data they haven't seen yet. Please share. You can trust me - I promise I'm not part of the conspiracy.
904. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"People" may have been saying that. Show us a single climatologist that said any such thing. The climatologists were saying that a warming atmosphere will hold more moisture and this has a potential for stronger hurricanes. None of them said it would raise the potential for land falling events and therefore none would have targeted the U.S. for having a greater number of land falling hurricanes.

You want to win the day for the denial industry? This could quite easily be done, IF you could show us the tested science that would invalidated the AGWT. Yes, I know, that is too hard to do so just don't even try. Right? It is far easier to instill doubt and confusion through misrepresentations and false illusions. I am starting to notice that the public is beginning to catch on as to which side is the perpetrator of the hoax. The perpetrators are not the scientist, but the denial industry. So, is this the denial industry's last big push into battle before losing their war based on lies? Did you think you had more time before the denial industry's hoax was exposed? Yes, we all originally thought that too. Now, not so much. Time is running out and more people are starting to realize this!

Your accusations are baseless without the evidence to support them, yoboi! Unless you just wish to stick to the claim that "people" were the ones saying this and not the scientific community itself, in which case, you are probably correct.


we have the so called experts saying sandy could be due to climate change......keep crying wolf and see how many people will belive.....prove to me that climate change does not go in cycles.....prove it....
As a layperson in Boston, I would sure appreciate it if someone could tell me the likelihood and severity of the second nor'easter you are all telling me is coming back to knock over our remaining trees next week. I know folks don't always translate these discussions--and shouldn't have to--but this week there are a lot of worried average joes and janes looking at this blog.

On another note: Where are people under evacuation order supposed to go? A well-off person can decide that it's a good week to take a spontaneous vacation to San Francisco. What if you're just working class, living paycheck to paycheck, and have no relatives you can stay with? Do you just get on the road up the Thruway and hope you find somewhere safe, even though Sandy is supposed to strike the whole area with great force? What if you don't even have a car, like many people in NYC and NJ? It does no good to assume options that simply don't exist.
That threat index was for NYC where the rats have been displaced from the flooding subway and sewer system. I'm surprised citizens aren't directing traffic there.

I would give you a threat index for Houston TX but it foods when a mouse drinks too much water before bedtime.
I mean nutria.

Those fire ant balls are horrid! and the water only needs to be inches deep for them to start building them. Our citizen had a hard time with them during restoration efforts after the Suwannee river flooded.


Quoting kwgirl:
I disagree with you. the warnings were very clear on TWC. I watched it so I know. Norcross and all meteorolgists on the channel kept repeating storm surge, high winds, etc, pointing out the coast area most likely to feel the brunt. And NJ was in the target most of the time. I think the uncertainty of where it would make landfall was a good enough reason for people to not heed the advice. They kept thinking it would be another Irene. I knew last year when that storm didn't pan out for the area forcasted that something like this might occur. We see it all the time in the Keys. That one 2 years ago didn't hit and this one is coming on the same path. People just don't realize all the forces that steer hurricanes. The people who did not evacuate ignored the warnings as I did during Wilma.


to say that that there was uncertainty in where it would make landfall is ridiculous all the models forecasted it to make landfall on the jersey shore
Quoting BosGuy:
As a layperson in Boston, I would sure appreciate it if someone could tell me the likelihood and severity of the second nor'easter you are all telling me is coming back to knock over our remaining trees next week. I know folks don't always translate these discussions--and shouldn't have to--but this week there are a lot of worried average joes and janes looking at this blog.

On another note: Where are people under evacuation order supposed to go? A well-off person can decide that it's a good week to take a spontaneous vacation to San Francisco. What if you're just working class, living paycheck to paycheck, and have no relatives you can stay with? Do you just get on the road up the Thruway and hope you find somewhere safe, even though Sandy is supposed to strike the whole area with great force? What if you don't even have a car, like many people in NYC and NJ? It does no good to assume options that simply don't exist.


There are shelters everywhere for just this sort of emergency. With every "mandatory evacuation order" there will also be lists of places to go, and of ways to get there.
Quoting Matthias1967:


The media? Feh! The media was creating terms like superstorm and megastorm and drew comparisons to other events like snowmageddon and snowtember. That's not taking warning seriously. And they're hyping it, rather saying, they underhyped it by showing that "Day after tomorrow" clip all the time which everyone understood it would not happen so many assumed nothing would happen. Including Mr. Bloomberg.
Dr. Forbes on TWC gave an explanation on the term "superstorm". because of the 2 systems coming together (the nor'easter and cold coming down, and hurricane Sandy) it was creating a "superstorm" that was unprecedented. you have all the effects of the nor'easter, snow, wind, cold, combined with the hurricane--wind, surge, rain. The size of the system(s) was incredible, with the energy of the nor'easter feeding into the tropical energy.

It was mentioned numerous times that this was "historic", unprecedented, and going to be a very dangerous storm for areas that don't usually take a direct hit. I'm in central Illinois, and we had couple very windy days from this storm! (hubby is from galveston area, lots of family down there-Rita got me hooked on this site-back to lurking....
Quoting MechEngMet:


Thanks for the reply.
Well that does make some kind of sense as a hind sight cover-up kind of position. But the way most normal warnings read: (I paraphrase) "...area can expect hurricane conditions within 24 hours...". She was still an undisputed hurricane 24 hours out, so the warning should have been issued as such. If she were undisputed cold core or extra tropical more than 24 hours out then I could understand and accept the omission of the word 'hurricane' from the warnings.

Thanks again for the reply.


Which part of the NHC statement didn't you understand?!

Forecast discussion states: TO AVOID A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE CHANGE FROM TROPICAL TO NON-TROPICAL WARNINGS WHEN SANDY BECOMES POST-TROPICAL...THE WIND HAZARD NORTH OF THE TROPICAL STORM WARNING AREA WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONVEYED THROUGH HIGH WIND WATCHES AND
WARNINGS ISSUED BY LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICES.
replying to a very old post (802) but I see the action's moved on to the next JM blog post, so FWIW...


Quoting WitsEndNJ:

[...] everywhere trees fell and took down power lines. Why? pictures here:

http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-happen ed-to-power.html

The trees are rotten on the inside.


As this piece talks about the UK's Forestry Commission I can perhaps comment with a bit of personal experience... not something I'd have expected for the Sandy threads! I live in the Forest of Dean, which is (by UK standards) fairly densely wooded -- lots of commercial coniferous plantations but also lots of native broadleaf species. Anecdotally, I haven't seen any evidence of ozone causing trees to die or rot from the inside. Occam's Razor suggests to me that a lot of trees that have fallen have rotten hearts because they're weaker than healthy trees, and the reason so many trees have come down is that the US NE hasn't had many storms with high windspeeds over a large area -- certainly nothing like Sandy -- for decades. In the absence of high winds, broadleaf trees will survive for many, many years after the heartwood has started to decay. If, say (picking a number at random) 1% of all trees get to the state where 70mph winds will bring them down, and you don't get such high windspeeds for 20 years, the number that fall will be pretty close to 20%.

Finally, if (as the blog piece linked to claims) ozone damage to trees is well established -- I've no reason to disbelieve this -- and if ozone levels are regularly monitored over a wide area -- as they are -- it would be pretty obvious what was happening. It's hard to suppress information about the composition of the atmosphere! [redact tangent about AGW here ;) ] I note that the 'Grauniad' piece linked to from the blog doesn't make any mention of ozone *or any other pollutants*, at all. The current problem with ash fungus attacks really *did* first break out in continental Europe, and it *has* spread to the UK. Again this is all easily verified from open sources. Now, 25 years ago acid rain caused by unscrubbed sulphur dioxide from coal-burning power stations really WAS a problem, and it WAS clearly visible in the Dean. How that problem was tackled is too far OT to go into here (but it's interesting in the light of more contemporary, er, "issues of environmental pollution".
Quoting yoboi:


just going by what everyone was saying after 2005 season.....have not seen the majors like they were saying...


And again, 7 years does not a climate make, especially for a data set that is particularly noisy from year to year. Get back to us in another 13-23 years when we are actually covering a period of time that can be described as climate. Until then, any comparisons of tropical cyclone activity and tropical cyclone intensity between years are best described as weather or climate variability.
omg too contentious for me today
I have a question (I already know the answer). If Sandy was no longer a hurricane when it made landfall then why didn't TWC give it a name per their new naming guidelines?
..