Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Hurricane Sandy Discussion Thread
IainB:
(@SKA: I wonder if you could correct the title of the OP to read Hurricane... - i.e. not the "...caine" ending?)
There's a really interesting and informative post about H-Sandy in the context of the phenomena of hurricanes in general, on a climate scientist's blog (Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.) - “Hurricanes: Their Nature And Impacts On Society” Published In 1997 By Pielke Jr. and Pielke Sr. Available As A PDF
(The post is copied below including typos and the embedded hyperlink to the .PDF file.)
Our book Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society. John Wiley and Sons, England, 279 pp. is available as a pdf. The material is not updated for more recent storms (since 1997) but the recommendations and information on tropical cyclones may useful in the discussion of the impacts of Sandy. Of particular interest related to such late season hurricanes is the text on Hurricane Hazel (1954) where we wrote that
Hazel joined with another storm system to devastate inland communities from Virginia to Ontario, Canada. Washington, DC experienced its strongest winds ever recorded……..In 1954, Hurricane Hazel…..underwent a similar rapid acceleration to a speed of 60 mph (27 meters per second), as strong south to southwesterly winds developed to the west of the storm. Hazel crossed the North Carolina coastline at 9:25 am on 15 October, and reached Toronto, Canada only 14 hours later where it resulted in 80 deaths (Joe et al. 1995). At that time, it was the most destructive hurricane to reach the North Carolina coast. Every fishing pier was destroyed over a distance of 170 miles (270 km) from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to Cedar Island, North Carolina. All traces of civilization were practically annihilated at the immediate waterfront between Cape Fear and the South Carolina state line.
__________________
--- End quote ---
We reported that
“….tropical cyclones can become absorbed into developing mid-latitude storms thereby infusing added moisture and wind energy from the tropical cyclone and resulting in a more intense mid-latitude storm than otherwise would occur.
__________________
--- End quote ---
Clearly, this later behavior is what made Sandy a much stronger storm than either a mid-latitude or hurricane would have been separately. In contrast to Hazel, however, Sandy was not as strong a hurricane. It also tracked towards the west as it interacted with the developing mid-latitude storm rather than accelerating northward as Hazel did. This resulted in the large fetch of easterly and southeasterly winds into northern New Jersey, Long Island and New Your City which produced the large storm surge.
Our book also discusses the impacts of tropical cyclones which includes extreme winds, storm surge, tornadoes, flash flooding and riverine (i.e. large river) flooding. The analysis has yet to be completed, but I suspect that storm surge will attributed, by far, to largest economic damage.
Also, with a storm of this magnitude, the National Hurricane Center, the National Center for Environmental Prediction, the media and public officials must be recognized and commended for their early warming. This has resulted in a much lower loss of life than would have otherwise occurred.
--- End quote ---
TaoPhoenix:
Vague Sentence alert: "In contrast to Hazel, however, Sandy was not as strong a hurricane." - In what context was Sandy not a Hurricane? When it intercepted the second front?
IainB:
Following on from my comment above, Roger Pielke Sr. has more posts about H-Sandy and other hurricanes on his blog. One of them: The Size Of Hurricane Sandy – How Does It Compare?
There are embedded images and links in his blog, so it is probably best to read them directly via the link, but here are two interesting extracts:
* Extract #1: For comparison with the figure from the book, the distance between 5 degrees of latitude in the figure below is 555 km (300 nautical miles or 345 statute miles ). Tip had tropical storm winds out to ~700km on the east side and hurricane winds out to about ~175 km from the eye.
The analyses from NHC [shown below] show that Sandy’s size of tropical storm and hurricane winds were comparable to Tip, but, fortunately, the hurricane winds were much less in Sandy. Also, the radius of hurricane winds, appears to have contracted substantially at and right after landfall.
* Extract #2: Clearly, Sandy was a giant tropical cyclone, and rivals the largest ones in size that occur in the Pacific Ocean. A major difference with Tip, however, is that Tip attained wind speeds of up to 190 mph (305 km/h) and a central pressure of 870 millibars (25.69 inches of mercury) – see, while Sandy was a much more modest hurricane. This suggests the potential that if a major hurricane (such as Hazel from 1955) followed the same path as Sandy as it merged with a midlatitude storm system, a truly worse-case superstorm could occur. Thus the worse-case scenario, even with the current climate, did not happen with Sandy.
Regardless, how, or if, the risk from hurricane landfalls of this type increases in the future, a prudent policy path would be to reduce the risk from all plausible hurricane landfalls. through more effective land use planning.
IainB:
Some years ago, I was assigned to manage a project to develop a functional BCP (Business Continuity Plan) for a major Australian-owned bank based in New Zealand. The BCP had to be aligned with the stringent BCP standards mandated by the Australian parent. Being volcano-prone, earthquake-prone and tsunami-prone as an island on the "Pacific Rim of Fire", NZ already had/has a well-established MCD (Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management).
We collaborated closely with the MCD in developing the BCP, and during the course of that collaboration I learned how well-prepared NZ MCD was for naturally-occurring disastrous events. The level of preparedness was very impressive. For example, for years now, things like mandatory building standards have taken into account the need for buildings to behave in a certain manner for maximum safety, in the event of an earthquake tremor. These standards are constantly being improved and lessons are being learned even now from investigations/reviews of the outcomes of past disastrous events - e.g., things like the recent Christchurch earthquake(s).
Things could always be improved, and will be, but I think that the current level of planning and preparedness is quite impressive anyway.
My curiosity was thus sparked by the two underlined comments by Roger Pielke Snr. (quoted in the thread above):
* 1. The civil defense preparedness/response to H-Sandy was apparently effective:
Also, with a storm of this magnitude, the National Hurricane Center, the National Center for Environmental Prediction, the media and public officials must be recognized and commended for their early warming. This has resulted in a much lower loss of life than would have otherwise occurred.
-IainB (October 31, 2012, 05:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
* 2. The implication that policy for hurricane preparedness might not be sufficiently effective re land use planning.
Regardless, how, or if, the risk from hurricane landfalls of this type increases in the future, a prudent policy path would be to reduce the risk from all plausible hurricane landfalls. through more effective land use planning.
-IainB (October 31, 2012, 06:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
On the second point: I cannot imagine under what circumstances any civil defence responsibility could justify being negligent in not having adequate and effective land-use planning already in place. This when you have known for years (QED Pielke's book Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society) that hurricanes are going to come rolling inland off the sea with some kind of monotonous cyclical, clockwork regularity, and that land-use planning would make a significant difference to risk mitigation/avoidance. The mind boggles.
On the first point: H-Sandy seems to have been used as a political opportunity. What I have read from various blogs and news outlets is that FEMA was apparently an actual/potential component of the effective response, and yet FEMA appears to be being used as a political football - e.g., FEMA: Did Mitt Call for its Abolition? And Why Does Barack Want to Cut Its Funding?
I cannot conceive of a natural disaster being used as a political opportunity, or civil defence being so cynically used as a political football, in little old NZ. However, I can understand why it might be politically expedient to so use it in the cut-throat politics of the US - though it seems to show an apparently acceptable, cynical and callous disregard for and indifference to human endangerment and suffering, by the Executive, the Administration, and others.
Regardless, I gather that Obama has seemed to come over as "quite presidential" in his handling of the H-Sandy opportunity, whereas the same opportunity has left Romney looking a bit weak after his "Abolish FEMA".
One wonders what might have occurred had H-Sandy not so conveniently eventuated around election-time, and whether the politicians and their mouthpieces in the MSM would have encouraged anyone to give a damn about the human victims of the hurricane.
[/Rant]
SKA:
http://www.infowars.com/congressman-wants-12-billion-for-fema-and-sandy-added-to-national-debt/
http://www.infowars.com/nyt-on-hurricane-sandy-were-doomed-without-fema-and-big-government/
from second link above:
"A 1992 study by the Cox Newspapers Group found that during 1982-1992 FEMA’s budgets included only $243 million for disaster relief but $2.9 billion for black ops, according to Harry Helms, author of Inside the Shadow Government: National Emergencies and the Cult of Secrecy.
“Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under Constitutional law by the Congress,” writes Harry V. Martin."
Ska
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version