Don’t Panic — But Prepare. Sandy Looks Like The Real Deal.
[NOTE: For my latest updates on Hurricane Sandy, follow me on Twitter. You may also want to read my thoughts on potential election impacts from Hurricane Sandy. Additionally, I did radio interviews today for WCBS 880 AM in New York (listen here), KFAB 1110 AM in Omaha (listen here) and WBAL 1090 AM in Baltimore (no archive link yet).]
Above: The impending clash of titans — a strong trough of low pressure (a.k.a. cold front) that would probably have produced a powerful Nor’easter even if no hurricane were present, and Hurricane Sandy, which is expected to join forces with the trough to create an epic storm of historic proportions.
* * * * *
“The more data I see, the more I think we’re going to be talking about this storm for decades.”
That’s what meteorologist Nate Johnson said last night on the WeatherBrains live show about Hurricane Sandy. It’s a sentiment I keep seeing expressed again and again, in various forms, by pretty much everyone with pertinent meteorological knowledge. Not just serial alarmists, but everyone. (That includes plenty of AGW skeptics, for what it’s worth. This isn’t a global warming hypestorm. This is, potentially, a truly historic weather event, regardless of your stance on climate change.)
When you look at the data — at the best information presently available — you just can’t escape the conclusion that Sandy appears increasingly likely to be an unprecedented and extremely serious storm, as the Capital Weather Gang writes:
With computer models locked in on the eventuality of a punishing blow for East Coast from Hurricane Sandy (with the latest model runs favoring the northern mid-Atlantic), analyses suggest this storm may be unlike anything the region has ever experienced.
Model simulations have consistently simulated minimum pressures below 950 mb, which would be the lowest on record in many areas.
“Below 950 mb” is an understatement. Last night, a run of the HWRF model forecast an impossible-seeming 922-millibar storm at landfall (see below). That was Hurricane Andrew’s intensity when it hit Florida in 1992! The GFS and Euro models have also shown very low pressures in various models runs. Realistically, the models are probably overstating things a bit — Sandy probably won’t get quite that intense (and even if it did, its winds wouldn’t be anywhere near Andrew-like levels, because it will have a much, much wider and more diffuse circulation — in other words, gale- and hurricane-force winds over a huge area, but no central area of Category 3, 4 or 5 type winds) — but when the models are ranging from the 920s and 930s to more “reasonable” values in the 940s and 950s, you can’t help but take the storm seriously. The “perfect storm” was only 972mb! Anything below 960mb is pretty epic and historic.
It isn’t just the barometric pressure that has folks alarmed, of course. So many of the potential tracks would bring devastating coastal flooding. The official NHC track could be calamitous for Delaware Bay. The latest GFS model could bring devastating flooding to the shores of Long Island Sound. And of course there is the New York Harbor nightmare. Or, Washington, D.C., the Delmarva and Chesapeake Bay could be crushed. Or the New Jersey shore could. It’s important to emphasize that we don’t know exactly where Sandy will go, and won’t for a while yet. But at this point, it’s hard to find a reasonably likely track that wouldn’t be a serious disaster for someone, in a region that’s so heavily populated.
Moreover, because Sandy is so huge, its impact will be widespread and long-lasting. North and east of the landfall point, its relentless onshore winds will pile up a storm surge over a wide area through multiple tide cycles — making each successive high tide higher than the previous one. With astronomical high tide on Monday, this is a particularly big problem. AccuWeather meteorologist Mike Smith (an AGW skeptic and non-alarmist) writes on his blog: “Based on some media coverage I’m seeing, the threat of flooding in coastal areas is being underplayed. Especially, if you live ten feet or lower above sea level, you need to be prepared to evacuate should the order be given.” I completely agree with that statement.
While we’re on the topic of ocean flooding, models suggest Sandy will stir up the ocean to an almost unbelievable extent, with offshore waves that are, well, just huge:
And then there’s the potential rainfall… and snowfall!
(The total rainfall would actually be greater than the graphic at left shows, because that’s only a 5-day forecast, going through Wednesday morning, when the storm is forecast to be inland over Pennsylvania, still dumping lots of rain.)
I’m picking up some skepticism of all this “hype” from commenters and on Twitter, by folks who say this is “just” a Category 1 hurricane or “just” a big Nor’easter, and the media is jumping the gun again, like they did with Irene and various other storms. (Actually, Irene arguably lived up to much of the hype, but I’ll leave that argument for another day.) This sort of critique, which is often more rote media criticism than actual storm-specific analysis, routinely fails to recognize that weather forecasting is an inherently uncertain probabilistic enterprise — meaning most worst-case scenarios, warned of days in advance, don’t happen; if we wait to discuss them until they’re likely or certain to happen, it’s too late to prepare — so you have to judge the validity of “hype” contemporaneously, not with the benefit of hindsight. And, given that fact, the “overhype” critique is particularly misguided and wrong-headed in the present situation. The currently available data suggests, almost unanimously, that the universe of realistic scenarios for Sandy ranges from “bad” to “very, very bad.” The moment that data shifts, and starts suggesting a lower probability of disaster, I’ll let you know, just as I did with Irene and Isaac when the data shifted toward more favorable outcomes in those cases. But right now, that’s just not what the data says.
Some folks — local TV news departments probably being among the worst offenders — will always hype every semi-serious storm, and even more folks (including national cable news writ large) routinely fail to walk back previously-justified hype when the data changes, or events on the ground prove the data wrong. But those of us who take our roles seriously only hype those storms that deserve it, and tamp down the hype when conditions change such that the storm no longer deserves it. Right now, this storm deserves it.
It’s also critically important to remember yesterday’s quote from meteorologist Brad Panovich: “Don’t let the Category of the storm or whether it’s ‘just’ a Nor’easter dictate your response. Your personal memories of previous storms are no use in this unique situation.”
Why, you may ask, is it so unique? Why is all of this happening? Why is a Category 1 hurricane so potentially devastating? The Capital Weather Gang gives the most succinct answer I’ve seen:
[T]he clash of the cold blast from the continental U.S. and the massive surge of warm, moist air from Hurricane Sandy will cause the storm to explode and the pressure to crash.
This is highly unusual for a variety of reasons, about which, more after the jump.
What about tornado risks? Would the clash of fronts make this storm even more tornado-prone than a normal hurricane? And it’s hitting a part of the country where tornados are not a regular fact of life…..
I’m not 100% sure, but I’ve seen several meteorologists say tornadoes aren’t too likely because the air will be too cold as the trough moves in.
Brendan. While in general this may be true, localized areas of instability may be enough to generate small, short-lived twisters.
I used to live in Southern and Central California, and the winter storms that would role through in El Nino years were known for sometimes producing tornadic activity. Again, it wasn’t wide-spread or long-lived. But the unstable air coming in after the main front blew through would often produce small thunderstorms. I saw on more than one occasion a water spout or funnel cloud generated in these storms. I actually drove through one that plowed into Monterey one day without realizing it. It wasn’t until after I saw the news reports on the damage that I realized I had driven my truck through a small twister that came ashore right at that time. It was “rain shrouded”.
These are odd circumstances, and I’m betting the data trove from this storm will be analyzed for decades. It’ll be fascinating to see how the modeling software gets rewritten based on what is found. I think the word “unprecedented” is going to be worn out in short order.
Thanks for the write-up, Brendan. I’ll watch for your updates.
Seems to me, from the satellite presentation, that this is a badly sheared storm with not that much potential for strengthening.
But then it’s predicted to hit a section of coast that doesn’t see hurricanes all that often, so I suppose the hype might be justified.
Vader, don’t be fooled. The expectation for several days now has been that it would be sheared at this point in its evolution … only to significantly re-strengthen (via a strange hybrid of tropical and baroclinic energy) on Sunday/Monday as it moves into a more favorable environment, in between the two big troughs, and sits over the Gulf Stream.
Perhaps the models will be wrong, for the reasons I discuss above, but nothing that’s happened yet provides evidence for that hope.
Vader, I responded in greater detail to your point in a new post. I suspect you won’t be the last to raise it, so I thought I’d try to pre-empt the issue as best I can.
Who appointed this guy loy a weather expert. His predictions over the GOP convention were insipid. Those of us with actual experience KNEW the storm would not get NEAR Tampa.
This one is most likely to skim up the East coast and head out into the Atlantic.
Loy, the weather hype-mister.
Lester, it’s good to know your “actual experience” trumps what all of the most advanced computer models and most experienced meteorologists believe based on the best available data.
I’m not a “weather expert,” nor do I claim that mantle; I’m a layperson with an interest in weather — a “weather nerd” — who has a certain amount of lay knowledge, but not “expertise.” That said, I do know how to read maps, and words. There is presently no reason whatsoever to believe Sandy will “skim up the East coast and head out into the Atlantic.” That’s the opposite of what ALL the computer models are forecasting right now. Could it happen? Sure — and Mitt Romney might win New Mexico. But there’s presently no reason to believe such a thing.
By the way, I challenge you to find a single post where I “predicted” Isaac would hit Tampa, as opposed to stating (correctly) that Tampa was, at that time, one possible landfall target among the many that were, based on the information contemporaneously available, reasonably possible. Tampa got a lot of attention because it seemed, at that point, the most “newsworthy” of the possibilities… but I never “predicted” a certain landfall there, and indeed I was always clear that we didn’t yet know where the storm would go. So…malarkey.
“Sandy appears increasingly likely to be an unprecedented and extremely serious storm”
“UNPRECDENTED?” I take exception to that.
Powerful hurricanes in the Northeast has been the exception for decades. Historically, we are long overdue for this event.
Good reporting. It will be interesting to see whether climate change figures into the post-game narrative of Sandy. Is this unusual or is it just business as usual? Are we to expect more of these types of extreme weather events?
I wanted to send a quick message in order to express gratitude to you for some of the splendid hints you are posting on this website. My long internet research has at the end been rewarded with sensible points to exchange with my friends and classmates. I ‘d state that that we site visitors actually are undoubtedly blessed to be in a perfect community with so many special individuals with useful principles. I feel extremely grateful to have encountered your site and look forward to so many more thrilling moments reading here. Thanks a lot once again for all the details.