Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hurricane Sandy Threatens To Slam Northeast U.S. Monday-Tuesday 29th-30th

Options
1…2425262729

Comments

  • Options
    #842
    Harps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭Harps


    Chicken1 wrote: »
    With comments like that Deep Easterly in my opinion you have lost all credibility, a low of 940 :mad:

    A low of 945hPa passed over Donegal last winter and not a lot was made of it. I know its a lot rarer to get such a storm in New York but all Deep is saying is that meteorologically there was nothing particularly 'super' about it. Most of the damage is down to the unlucky timing with the full moon and high tide rather than the storm itself.

    But anyway there was no harm done in hyping it up, if it helped make more people aware of the danger then its a petty argument


  • Options
    #843
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Harps wrote: »

    A low of 945hPa passed over Donegal last winter and not a lot was made of it. I know its a lot rarer to get such a storm in New York but all Deep is saying is that meteorologically there was nothing particularly 'super' about it. Most of the damage is down to the unlucky timing with the full moon and high tide rather than the storm itself.

    But anyway there was no harm done in hyping it up, if it helped make more people aware of the danger then its a petty argument

    I think the major difference between a low passing over Donegal and the eastern US tri state area and surrounding region is that it is a major urban and significant population area compared to Donegal. The geography of the area also includes significant areas of low lying coastline especially in a number of heavily populated metropolitan zones.


  • Options
    #844
    Su Campu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭Su Campu


    Correct. It was an unusual storm but as a hurricane it was no big deal, and it wasn't even a tropical system when it reached land. The big deal was the fact that much of the US coast is unable to deal with storms due to their almost straw huts built along low-lying coastal communities and the fact that Manhattan was a disaster waiting to happen. It also just so happens that it all occurred at the worst possible time regarding tides. So yes, it was a huge "event" overall, but taking just the meteorological part of it, as this is the weather forum, it was a bad, but not unprecedented, storm.

    Katrina was the real deal but again, its effects were exacerbated not by natural but by human factors, such as ignoring decades of warnings about the flood defences and the fact that it's probably the worst place in the world to build a city when it comes to coastal flooding.


  • Options
    #845
    Deep Easterly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭Deep Easterly


    gbee wrote: »
    I followed, all the news services. The Weather Channel coined the phrase superstorm and advised that they were going to call it a hurricane [after it wasn't] as the average person watching the event and potentially being effected by it would perhaps not take the storm seriously and not take action, many did not anyway.

    They were more concerned with advising people of the danger and the continued danger rather than the systematics of the storm for weather enthusiasts.

    I'm sure they will make no apology for that. And I'm confident there are people alive today because of it.

    I take your point, but the term 'Superstorm' somehow suggests that it was something extraordinary meteorologically. The Weather Channel could just have easily called it a dangerous storm to warn people. People are not stupid, they don't necessarily need blockbuster type phrases to warn them about the potential dangers of such a storm.

    Another point. I don't see why we mere weather enthusiasts cannot discuss the systemics of the storm, since this is supposed to be a weather enthusiasts forum - unless of course, there is some unwritten law that I am not aware of that says that we should not?


  • Options
    #846
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Deep Easterly wrote: »
    I take your point, but the term 'Superstorm' somehow suggests that it was something extraordinary meteorologically. The Weather Channel could just have easily called it a dangerous storm to warn people. People are not stupid, they don't necessarily need blockbuster type phrases to warn them about the potential dangers of such a storm.....
    I beg to differ here.....even with the media hyperbole, the warnings from State authorities and the designation of 'mandatory evacuation' in some areas....some residents stayed put and risked their lives and the lives of rescue workers.

    I think most people here recognise that the terms 'superstorm' and 'frankenstorm' are creation of the media and have no basis in meteorology. (eg. Su Ostro used the term 'historic weather event'. But the media editors wouldn't think that was attention grabbing enough)

    Personally I see this storm as being an historic event based on its impact on the US rather than purely its technical status as a Hurricane/Post tropical storm/Nor'easter, etc. If it had of stayed out to sea the term superstorm would never have been used. This distinction does not lessen the impact of this weather event on popular culture in the affected region.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #847
    Iancar29
    Registered Users Posts: 5,068 ✭✭✭Iancar29


    Gangnam Style!

    ZBogd.gif


  • Options
    #848
    Deep Easterly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭Deep Easterly


    Tenger wrote: »
    This distinction does not lessen the impact of this weather event on popular culture in the affected region.

    But as you know, this storm will henceforth be known as the media termed Superstorm or Frankenstorm of 2012 and just because these terms will be now used in popular culture, it still does not make them any less misleading.


  • Options
    #849
    El Horseboxo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭El Horseboxo


    Deep Easterly wrote: »
    People are not stupid, they don't necessarily need blockbuster type phrases to warn them about the potential dangers of such a storm.

    I grew up in Kansas and live in Oklahoma now. People definitely are stupid and they do need a kick up the ass to get them to react when it comes to storms. You get 6 tornado warnings in a row and you react to all of them but nothing happens. On the 7th, 8th and 9th you do nothing but look at the sky and again nothing happens. If the media make a huge deal about the 10th time and call it a super storm chances are you will react and shelter to that. But if it was just another normal warning you may just continue on like you did for the 7th, 8th and 9th time.


  • Options
    #850
    Su Campu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭Su Campu


    El Horseboxo wrote: »
    I grew up in Kansas and live in Oklahoma now. People definitely are stupid and they do need a kick up the ass to get them to react when it comes to storms. You get 6 tornado warnings in a row and you react to all of them but nothing happens. On the 7th, 8th and 9th you do nothing but look at the sky and again nothing happens. If the media make a huge deal about the 10th time and call it a super storm chances are you will react and shelter to that. But if it was just another normal warning you may just continue on like you did for the 7th, 8th and 9th time.

    That's why I say that from a meteorological point of view I think they will revise the lifeline of the storm and make it post-tropical much earlier than they did Monday.


  • Options
    #851
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Harps wrote: »
    A low of 945hPa passed over Donegal last winter and not a lot was made of it. I know its a lot rarer to get such a storm in New York but all Deep is saying is that meteorologically there was nothing particularly 'super' about it. Most of the damage is down to the unlucky timing with the full moon and high tide rather than the storm itself.

    But anyway there was no harm done in hyping it up, if it helped make more people aware of the danger then its a petty argument



    But the low caused the damage, if no low the floods wouldn't of happened with the high tide.

    Look at the images coming across from the US, places are destroyed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #852
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    As El Horsboxo said,people can be stupid so the more it was hyped the better in order to get the message across.If they had said "it's just a storm" then imagine how many more would have died.As it stands many ignored warnings & are now paying the price.
    One guy in a shelter being interviewed summed it up when he said "if they tell you a bad storm is coming that usually means it is,you do as your told & get outta there".He had sense & left his home,many didn't & are now stranded.

    As for comparing it to the Winter Storms we get here,there's no comparison.This system has affected almost 2 dozen states & is now helping to dump 3ft of snow in Virginia,Pennsylvania & other states.Imagine Ireland getting hit with conditions like that,the country would shut down for months.
    Only now are we seeing footage of the scale of the damage as reporters & cameramen are getting access to places previously cut off.

    Waves of 30ft being reported now on the Great Lakes.


  • Options
    #853
    Su Campu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭Su Campu


    zerks wrote: »
    Waves of 30ft being reported now on the Great Lakes.

    Link? I can only see one isolated report of 10 ft, all others are around 5 or less.

    http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynop?lang=en&esc=2&nav=Yes&lat=45N&lon=085W&proy=orto&base=bluem&ano=2012&mes=10&day=31hora=12&vpr=Pr

    http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?lat1=45.351N&lon1=82.840W&uom=E&dist=500&ot=A&time=1


  • Options
    #854
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    Su Campu wrote: »
    Link? I can only see one isolated report of 10 ft, all others are around 5 or less.

    http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynop?lang=en&esc=2&nav=Yes&lat=45N&lon=085W&proy=orto&base=bluem&ano=2012&mes=10&day=31hora=12&vpr=Pr

    http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?lat1=45.351N&lon1=82.840W&uom=E&dist=500&ot=A&time=1

    Saw it on Fox News earlier so maybe a pinch of salt is needed.


  • Options
    #855
    Su Campu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭Su Campu


    The only buoy that came close is 45007 in southern Lake Michigan. SWH touched 22 ft earlier, but none of the tens of others across the Lakes came even close to that.

    plot_wave.php?station=45007&meas=sght&uom=E&time_diff=-5&time_label=CDT


  • Options
    #856
    Spindle
    Registered Users Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Spindle


    Su Campu wrote: »
    Link? I can only see one isolated report of 10 ft, all others are around 5 or less.

    http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynop?lang=en&esc=2&nav=Yes&lat=45N&lon=085W&proy=orto&base=bluem&ano=2012&mes=10&day=31hora=12&vpr=Pr

    http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/radial_search.php?lat1=45.351N&lon1=82.840W&uom=E&dist=500&ot=A&time=1
    zerks wrote: »
    Waves of 30ft being reported now on the Great Lakes.

    They suspected that there may have been some waves between 26 and 28 foot on Tuesday. But data is not returned enough to give more accurate heights. The highest average was 23foot on Lake Huron, which is pretty much the same as what Su Camp posted above.

    Anyway 20 foot waves are not uncommon in winter storms on the Great Lakes they are a massive body of water more like an ocean. There have been reports of 30 foot waves in previous storms as well.

    Here is a link to details on a very recent storm that had a lower pressure than Sandy over land around the Great lakes. Just to show from a weather point of view these storms are not unusual in the region.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storms_of_the_North_American_Great_Lakes#The_.22Chiclone.22_.282010.29


  • Options
    #857
    Spindle
    Registered Users Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Spindle


    zerks wrote: »
    Saw it on Fox News earlier so maybe a pinch of salt is needed.

    About as much salt that we needed for the roads here in 2010! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #858
    M.T. Cranium
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    A few scattered points as I have 4 mins of time to post ...

    Concern for Caribbean is high among many people in N America despite what you might infer from media attitudes. In case of Haiti, there is only so much that can be done to overcome free will factors in play, imposing democracy hasn't worked that well elsewhere. But CNN to their credit report death tolls in a way to include Caribbean and U.S.

    I consider Sandy to be a real hurricane to about 21z Monday although it was showing post-tropical characteristics as early as Bahamas. It was therefore a hybrid storm all the way, but hurricane-like, just a wider circulation. It was not really a typical nor'easter, too warm cored.

    Superstorm is more based on size and damage than real technical analysis, but 940-ish pressure and 100 mph wind gusts, nonhurricane, easy to sell.

    What's with the TS type circulation in the Med near Corsica?


  • Options
    #859
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Spindle wrote: »
    Here is a link to details on a very recent storm that had a lower pressure than Sandy over land around the Great lakes. Just to show from a weather point of view these storms are not unusual in the region.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storms_of_the_North_American_Great_Lakes#The_.22Chiclone.22_.282010.29

    I prefer "Superstorm Sandy" to "Chiclone" ;)


  • Options
    #860
    M.T. Cranium
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Would agree that Sandy is no big deal over Great Lakes other than to produce some locally damaging wind gusts at south ends of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron (Sarnia ON lost power in 120 km/hr gusts on Monday night).

    In fact for eastern Ontario now being traversed by the filling centre, the event was experienced as some spring-like weather with warm sunshine at times yesterday. That's just the way inland moving tropical systems can degenerate, some maintain a circulation better than others.

    As I posted before, a good percentage of daily rainfall records at Toronto over many years relate to inland trajectory of big-name tropical systems, and a study that I did a long time ago established that 4 to 6 per cent of all rainfall at Toronto is received directly from extratropical systems.

    I notice the record for Nov 1 was set in 1861 during something similar to this set-up, a frontal system stalled out west of a New England landfalling tropical remnant storm. Some years come and go with no tropical rainfall reaching the Great Lakes basin, others seem to get a large amount, so it must be considered a factor in the type of growing season or harvesting season. The record rainfall year of 1843 got 20% of its total rain from these tropical events. In a drought summer like 1936, there wasn't even a close call.

    Part of former Sandy will end up coming out into the Labrador Sea in about three or four days, part will hang back over Hudson Bay and die out there. There could be a bit of Sandy's energy arriving in the jet stream late next week, but I wouldn't call it "Sandy" after so many transformations. This atmosphere is pretty complex and sometimes we need more complicated terms than we have available. There probably hasn't been a storm quite like Sandy in modern times, although the 1804 "snow hurricane" of Oct 6-8 managed the same magnitude of inland snowfall (in different regions further northeast).


  • Options
    #861
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    Some amazing pictures here showing part of the devastation caused by Sandy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225865/Superstorm-Sandy-devastation-seen-Obama-flies-visit-New-Jersey-victims.html

    article-2225348-15C467C4000005DC-317_964x619.jpg

    article-2225865-15C80314000005DC-620_964x651.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #862
    Su Campu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭Su Campu


    M.T. Cranium wrote: »

    What's with the TS type circulation in the Med near Corsica?

    Could that be developing into a superstorm???!!!:pac:

    Some pretty strong winds alright, with up to 43 knots at a ship just east of Menorca and 42 knots at Capo Carbonara in southeastern Sardinia.

    Bolam Model
    2D_9_12.png


  • Options
    #863
    blankAs
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭blankAs


    will this storm be on track to hit ireland at some time in the future?


  • Options
    #864
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 13,008 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    In New York, it looks like all the recovery attention is being focused on Manhattan, and other parts are being overlooked. When I looked at the map of vulnerable areas, I thought parts of Staten Island would be in trouble, and it looks that that's the case. 19 people are known to have died there, and according to a Fox News report, help is just not arriving.

    I haven't been to Staten Island, but it's about the size of Dublin, and it appears to me a bit like Dublin without the city centre. It's got rich people living up on the hills in nice safe neighbourhoods, and low-income people in poorer low-lying areas vulnerable to flooding. No surprises for guessing who's been hardest hit.

    Death has this much to be said for it:
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you—free.

    — Kingsley Amis



  • Options
    #865
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    Fox News. Really?


  • Options
    #866
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Fox News. Really?

    Most news media [eventually] actually, just as soon as they stop congratulating Mr Obama for his handling of Sandy.

    "We are pulling bodies out of the mud and they are pumping water out of the Battery Tunnel for a Marathon, see the disconnect here!" quote from a Staten Island resident. The Red Cross are sending ten truck loads of aid to the area yesterday.

    Almost 100 people dead from Sandy in the US.


  • Options
    #867
    Bessarion
    Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭Bessarion


    Can I guess that the island location is making access harder?

    Or that restoring Manhattan to 100% has priority over other area of NYC?

    I'm heading there (Manhattan) next Wedneday, not sure what to expect.


  • Options
    #868
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 13,008 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Fox News. Really?
    Just because they're rabid right-wing looneys on political matters, doesn't mean that they're useless for non-political straight news. CBS News has the story too, here. I just saw that Staten Island resident gbee quoted: he was on BBC News 24. Their website now has photos, here:

    Death has this much to be said for it:
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you—free.

    — Kingsley Amis



  • Options
    #869
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    If Fox News told me the world wasn't flat I would have issues believing them.


  • Options
    #870
    maquiladora
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭maquiladora


    Models are showing a nor'easter taking aim at roughly the same region hit by Sandy next week.

    GFS/ECM showing a moderately strong nor'easter of about 980mb, GEM takes it to 962mb which would be on the high end of the scale for that type of storm. Winds/surge obviously not as severe as Sandy but it won't help the recovery efforts underway over there and there could be coastal flooding in areas of Jersey where Sandy eroded away protective dunes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #871
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    maquiladora wrote: »
    Models are showing a nor'easter taking aim at roughly the same region hit by Sandy next week.

    GFS/ECM showing a moderately strong nor'easter of about 980mb, GEM takes it to 962mb which would be on the high end of the scale for that type of storm. Winds/surge obviously not as severe as Sandy but it won't help the recovery efforts underway over there and there could be coastal flooding in areas of Jersey where Sandy eroded away protective dunes.

    This was mentioned in an article in the Daily Mail a few days ago & the comments section was full of people dismissing the forecast.

    Evelyn Cusack mentioned it today during the farming forecast & said that it looks like it could hit us on 13 November.By that forecast she gave an extremely deep depression.Maybe M.T could shed more light on this coming storm.


Advertisement