Saying nothing about global warming here, as I find it irrelevant- heck, a couple of people I know from the area are named after hurricanes which hit in the 1950s and 1960s.
This area is no stranger to hurricanes - the south has no claim to them.
Respectfully, guys, high winds are an important component of stregnth of a storm, but they are not the whole picture. Tides and storm surge, area covered, legnth of time over affected area, and water and rain damage.
Actually, one should imagine if this had hit in a time like 1938 with no forecasting how many would have been killed.
Entire towns along the coast were evacuated and just now becoming inhabitable.
Also, the 1938 Hurricane had higher barometric pressure readings than did Sandy.
So, no.
Just as a matter of fact, the eye of 1938 hurricane hit Westhampton, 60 or so miles from NYC. It was a very bad storm and flooded providence RI completely, to the Northeast. It did not do so much damage to the east toward Montauk as Sandy did to her east.
Sandy hit Atlantic City 160 (one hundred sixty) miles to the south of Mnhattan, causing severe damage theare and beyond way into Long Island (Breezy Point and The Rockaways.
Everyone inland in NJ, LI, Conn has damage -trees down etc. It’s not fully poered up yet.
they don’t complain, and that has much to do with the perception that it wasn’t a big storm.
Mna made global warming shouldn’t enter into the discussion, as far as I’m concerned.
In fact this headline is so stupid. the U.N. should be talking about nothing else than our Ambassador hving been killed until they get to the bottom of it.
Also, the 1938 Hurricane had higher barometric pressure readings than did Sandy.
Extratropical transition caused a temporary drop in Sandy. The surge from Sandy hit at astronomical high tide. Had the surge from Hazel hit NYC at high tide instead of low tide it would have exceeded Sandy's surge
I agree that Sandy was a strong storm, but not as strong as several 19th century storms and a couple of 20th century storms.