- UCAR Home
- About Us
- For Staff
[NOTE: This is the second in a two-part post. Part 1, "Phenomenon of the year: Sandy’s stunning surge," explores communication and prediction aspects of the storm.]
Bob Henson • December 31, 2012 | Take a look at the illustration below. What do you find most striking? If your eyes are anything like mine, I’m guessing it’s how much Sandy’s storm surge (orange bar) exceeds the other top-ten surges observed since 1900 at New York’s Battery Park, near the southernmost tip of Manhattan.
At 8.99 feet on top of tides, Sandy’s surge was almost twice that of its nearest rivals, which all fell between 4 and 5 feet. It was Sandy’s unorthodox westward track, coupled with the storm’s vast size, that focused and pushed such a large surge into the New York area and much of the New Jersey coast, where equally impressive records were set in many spots.
Other factors also helped push seawater to devastating heights in Superstorm Sandy. The graphic depicts three top components:
Tidal definitions can be astoundingly complex. I found myself flummoxed at more than one point during Sandy’s approach. Here’s a nutshell version of what a newbie might want to know:
The graphic at the top of this page shows high-water values relative to the fixed benchmark of MLLW during the most recent averaging interval, which is 1983–2001. Sea level rise has added roughly 18 inches to mean sea level at Battery Park since the 1850s, or about a foot since 1900. Although this is slowly pushing up the water levels during both low and high tides, the tidal range itself is controlled by astronomical factors. Because the graphic shows tidal levels against a fixed benchmark, we’ve chosen to depict sea level rise as a component of the storm surge (solid and crosshatched orange areas).
The crosshatched area shows how much of the highest water level in each storm can be attributed to sea level rise since 1900. For simplicity, we’ve assumed a purely linear trend. While the rise isn’t spectacular, it’s adding more to the total water levels of each storm with each passing year. And even a small bit of extra water can have a major effect once flooding is under way.
One variable not considered here is how landfill and other changes to the landscape in and near New York Harbor might have affected surge values over the years. There have been many such changes, including the creation of Battery Park City in the 1960s atop landfill just north of Battery Park. However, most of that reclaimed land displaced only shallow water.
“I don't know of any studies of how the [1960s] construction may have affected the tides at the Battery, but I doubt it would be big enough to have much of an effect,” says tidal expert Chris Zervas (NOAA National Ocean Service). “At some places, dredging deeper shipping channels can increase the tidal range, but we don't see that for more than a handful of our stations.” In any event, the wide reach of Sandy’s spectacular surge transcends such factors by a long shot.
What about the moon? Lunar effects were often cited during the runup to Sandy as a potential exacerbating effect. Indeed, there was a full moon on the day Sandy arrived, and tidal ranges are generally higher during a full moon. However, Sandy ended up striking in the evening, during the lower of the day's two high tides, which made a real difference.
“If the storm surge had combined with the morning tide, the water levels reached could have been about seven inches higher than those that occurred,” says Zervas. Had Sandy struck two weeks earlier or later, at the highest tides during the new moon, water levels could have been up to 17 inches higher than observed.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.