The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Damage from Hurricane Sandy, why?

Damage from Hurricane Sandy, why?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
There is another major, perhaps primary factor, not mentioned by
scribbler.
It was reported that the air pressure dropped, from memory, to 960mb.
This caused the ocean to rise pushed up by higher pressures elsewhere.
The comment I saw said it was the lowest ever recorded pressure.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:35:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Found this on surges by NOAA

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:52:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three reasons;

a) The Patriarchy
b) The Misogynist Tony Abbott
c) The military Industrial complex
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 11:43:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the answers, however none have given any answer to the original question.

Why do much stronger cyclones, of similar or even larger size not produce similar storm surges in our waters?

I saw some reports of surges of 4 meters & more in some areas from Sandy, where none of our larger & stronger cyclones in a 20 year period in the Whitsundays, generated more than a few inches.

Bazz may have come close with a 960 central pressure reading. Going from memory, even much stronger cyclones I have experienced in Queensland have not got that low. I have a memory of considering 980+ as very low. Problem is it's a few years back. Of course it is the difference in pressure that generates the winds, not the pressure itself.

Poirot thanks for the reference, but nothing there to differentiate between US & Oz surge levels, for similar events.

Scribbler Sandy had wind speeds well below cyclone strength for over 12 hours before crossing the coast, with it's huge surge, what it was categorized as has more to do with the message authorities wished to convey.

What I am interested in is the reason for those destructive surges on the US east coast, front events which would generate little if any surge on the Queensland coast.

I wonder if it is a matter that like the oil add, "cyclones ain't cyclones" & I am comparing apples with oranges.

579 do try to grow up a bit.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 11:49:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/science/earth/shallow-waters-and-unusual-path-may-worsen-surge.html?_r=0

Hasbeen,

The above may help to answer your query then. A combination of counterclockwise rotation, extensive shallow offshore waters around the New York area, the unusual path of the hurricane (trapping water against the shores of New Jersey and New York), and the direct head-on landfall, all created a perfect environment for mayhem.

Quote: " 'As it moves west, the hurricane is expected to make landfall in New Jersey, perpendicular to the coast. Such a head-on hit can produce worse surges than a glancing blow because more water can be driven into estuaries and harbors.
“The bottom line for New York and New Jersey and Long Island Sound is that they are going to have the worst of the surge and coastal inundation,' Mr. Uccellini said."

As said earlier, if you look at a map of the affected area, you will see a huge number of rivers, basins, bays, harbours and estuaries - most particularly around the NJ and NY areas. As Sandy headed inland, it literally pushed the water ahead and around it, causing massive swells and surges. At one point, a buoy in the Hudson Bay recorded a 32 ft wave, which is a record breaker. When so much water is slushing around in narrow areas, it has to go somewhere.

Not really sure what else we can say.
Posted by scribbler, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 12:23:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen Wonders why this was a double wammy, of hot wild wind seas from the SW merging with with icy cold wind from Canada. The answer is simple. It was caused by a ridge of high pressure from Canada created by reduced sea ice in the arctic by the October 2012 sea ice melt over a fast area of water, that absorbs solar energy and puts more moisture that creates a new warming weather patterns over a huge area where 80 million americans Live.

With only 15 people dead in NY City is over the worst of their Problems . But with 200 billion worth of damage It's going to take years to fix that. NY has problems with underground electricity supply to many major buildings because most the tunnels which carry the electricity cables are flooded, as are the underground railway and some bridges. Fire destroyed many fine old wooden houses in Queens . In other places and on the Island and coast that felt the power of 30 feet high waves, all that is left of many homes is the stumps.
I
Over 3 states 200 mm of rainfall fell. A dam broke flooding three town and in virginia . West Virginia has still had blizzards at 6 this morning (31-10-2012) CNN showed electric power lines *toppled by wet snow falling on trees and then on then bringing down the power lines. it could take up to six weeks to reinstate them on minor roads.

Thank god that that OBAMA created a national emergency organization with 1500 staff who have been creating local networks of volunteers to deal with the this problem. CNN interviewed governors and city majors who are working him Obama and praising him because of his foresight in employing so many people devoted to this problem. In this disaster it has been good to see so many Americans want a bipartisan approach.

Even so Romney last week said the national emergency organization with 1500 staff was not necessary, as he was opposed more federal programs
Posted by PEST, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 12:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy