Ecocentric

Climate Change and Sandy: Why We Need to Prepare for a Warmer World

Climate change didn't cause Hurricane Sandy on its own, but that doesn't mean that global warming doesn't have an impact on extreme weather. Why we need to climate -proof our cities

  • Share
  • Read Later
Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Homes devastated by fire and the effects of Hurricane Sandy are seen at the Breezy Point section of the Queens borough of New York City on Oct. 30, 2012.

After a campaign season in which it was the missing in action issue, climate change roared back into relevancy in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Bill McKibben, the writer-turned-activist behind 350.org, put it in stark terms. “This is an absolutely unprecedented storm,” he told POLITICO on Monday evening. “This entire year should be a seriously wake-up call—and the public’s beginning to get it.”

Some scientists and science writers, however, were just as quick to caution that we can’t really attribute any single weather event to climate change—and that tropical cyclones like Sandy have proved particularly hard to connect to global warming. Andrew Revkin of Dot Earth drew a clear line against attributing Sandy directly to recent man-made warming, noting that there had been periods in the past when strong hurricanes occurred during cooler years:

There remains far too much natural variability in the frequency and potency of rare and powerful storms — on time scales from decades to centuries – to go beyond pointing to this event being consistent with what’s projected on a human-heated planet.

Of course, we’ll be grappling with the effects of Sandy—which has already killed over 20 people in the U.S. and which could easily top $20 billion in damages—whether or not it has to do with climate change. But the argument over attribution alone misses the point. We know that climate change is real, that it’s happening and that it will make many natural disasters more severe, from coastal flooding to droughts to storms. But the real danger stems from the fact that we’re putting more and more people and property in harm’s way, in built-up coastal cities like New York or Miami or Shanghai. Along with cutting carbon emissions to reduce the risk from climate change, we need to build and maintain a society that is capable that will prove more resilient to extreme weather in the future.


(MORE: Flying Blind: America’s Aging Weather Satellites)

It’s true that Hurricane Sandy got an unusual boost from extremely warm waters off the East Coast—through the first half of 2012, sea temperatures from Maine to North Carolina were the highest on record. (Some of that warm water may be due to natural variability, however, rather than man-made climate change.) Warmer ocean waters provide more power for tropical cyclones, which is why hurricanes are more common in the tropics and why the Atlantic hurricane season runs roughly over the summer and early fall. A paper published earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences made the case that warm years over the past several decades have been more active for cyclones than cooler years. Warmer air—and we’re on track to have the hottest year on record globally—can hold more moisture, which means storms can drop more rainfall. That’s one clear reason why many—but not all—atmospheric scientists believe global warming is likely to help cause stronger storms.

But the possible effect of warming on hurricanes is one of the less perfectly understood aspects of climate science, and there’s still a lot of natural variability at work that makes it difficult to fingerprint the human influence of a major storm. The last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report noted that scientists have “low confidence” in long-term increases in tropical cyclone activity due to man-made warming, and other studies have found evidence of massive storms that hit the Northeast thousands of years ago—well before humans began changing the climate. Sandy was also a truly freak event. The storm likely would have spun harmlessly out to the sea—as many late-season hurricanes do before they strike the East Coast—had it not met a blocking high pressure system that steered it towards the Northeast. That’s some seriously bad luck.

Over at the Houston Chronicle, science reporter Eric Berger noted the challenge of tying Sandy specifically to climate change:

The bottom line is that climate change is unquestionably having an effect on the weather around us by raising the average temperature of the planet. This is producing warmer temperatures and very likely increasing the magnitude of droughts. However, it is a big stretch to go from there to blaming Sandy on climate change. It’s a stretch that is just not supported by science at this time.

(MORE: Frankenstorm: Why Hurricane Sandy Could Be the Perfect Storm, Part II)

When it comes to policy responses, though, it doesn’t really matter exactly what role man-made climate change plays in amplifying storms. For one thing, we know that global sea level rise is happening, and we know that’s large due to man-made warming. And sea level in the Northeast seems to be rising three to four times faster than they are globally, which puts cities like New York—which has more than 580 miles of coastline—at enhanced risk. Storm surges and coastal flooding, rather than high-speed winds or drenching rain, proved to be Sandy’s real bane, with more than 12 ft. of flood water filling New York’s Battery Tunnel. Every subway tunnel beneath New York’s East River was flooded, leaving the system “devastated,” in the words of Metropolitan Transit Authority chairman Joseph Lhota.

As atmospheric scientists Kevin Trenberth told Slate, sea-level rise poses a long-term threat to the world’s coastal cities—a threat that is felt when a storm hits:

Sea level-rise happens episodically. One minute it looks benign and then a week later suddenly a storm or hurricane comes along like Sandy, and there are major waves, 20-foot waves, and major storm surge, and tremendous damage occurs.

Even if the storm just happened to do exactly the same things it’s doing anyway, the fact that sea level went up 6 inches last century, and that sea level is somewhat higher now than it has been at any time in recent history, means that all of the coastal regions are experiencing new levels of pounding and erosion.

Add the fact that coastal areas are becoming more densely populated—putting more people and property in harm’s way—and you have a recipe for a very expensive and dangerous disaster every time a storm like Sandy makes landfall. Climate change is just one more factor contributing to the growing danger from extreme weather. That’s why we need to build societies—and infrastructure—that can be resilient in the face of a natural disaster, or an unnatural one. Limiting the effects climate change through the reduction of carbon emissions and adaptation to extreme weather has to be built into any future development—something Andrew Revkin pointed out in his post yesterday.

(PHOTOSThe Toil After the Storm: Life in Sandy’s Wake)

We don’t demand absolute certainty before we take action in foreign policy, the economy or health. We’d be fools to wait until there’s perfect scientific consensus on the role that global warming may be playing in tropical storms before we take action to prepare for both. “Anyone who says there’s hasn’t been a dramatic change in weather patterns has been denying reality,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told reporters today. “We need to make sure that if there is weather like this we are more prepared and protected than we have been before.” As 8 million struggle without power in Sandy’s wake, that much should be painfully obvious.

MORE: Why Climate Change Has Become the Missing Issue in the Presidential Campaign

90 comments
fitty_three
fitty_three

Here is some food for thought, and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned:

There are considerable similarities between the 1962 Columbus Day storm and Sandy.  Both were the offspring of a marriage between a hurricane (or cyclone) and an extra tropical storm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962

That storm was likely more powerful than Sandy, we had 175's off the coast as it traveled north before crossing inland over Vancouver Island.

The idea that global warming might be influencing these has a lot of merit: the longer a cyclone or hurricane lasts, the farther north it tracks together with the generation of more extra tropical storms at mid-latitudes increases the likelihood of the two coming together. 

philosophy4info
philosophy4info

First it was the "deniers" who were unscientific -- denying climate change against supposed factual evidence.  Now, the early and firm adopters know so much that they can dispense with the actual factual evidence (or lack thereof) too. When scientists tell us that it would be unscientific to make the connections between events like Sandy and climate change, they are scolded or ignored.  And who else out there is weary of the constant and willful equivocation between the idea that the climate is changing and the idea that human civilization causes this change.  The first is a banal fact (was there ever a time when the climate was not changing?); the second, a laughably unprovable claim (please point me to the scientific demonstration that shows human activity alternately raising sea levels and earth temps and then lowering them). 

jdyer2
jdyer2

Yes, I couldn't agree more that we should start preparing for climate change.

But we won't.

WRBurton
WRBurton

Reality Check: There has been NO warming of the earth in 16 years. That is a fact.

Tmacoctavius
Tmacoctavius

So sad so much destruction.

Best of luck to all NYFD NYPD and others in helping victims in NY NJ CT

National Academy of Science has noted not only is global warming man made but we need to act to cut carbon emissions.

FACTS

Earth is warmer

Water is warmer 55 degrees in North Atlantic for November

Warmer air hold more  water vapor

Arctic Sea ice melted record amount even more than predicted.

More water vapor means bigger rainfall amounts bigger storms

FICTION

someone told me climate change is not man made

I wonder how many of these monster storms wildfires droughts polar ice melting need to happen until people wake up

From the sounds of the ignorant  people the answer is NEVER. The truly deluded will NEVER admit what all National Academy of Sciences worldwide have been saying for decades, that burning stuff warms the earth. DUH

rock0267
rock0267

Except we DON'T know climate change is real. Nice try. These nuts will use any excuse to push their fraudulent cause. Hello, wake up, 'global warming/climate change' has already been disproven time and time again. Where are you getting your info from???

natcurrier
natcurrier

Dear Bryan - 

I'm so happy that you are writing something on the climate -Sandy connection. To me though, what you write actually doesn't go far enough, and there are two things I see as being close to errors here. 

1. "That’s some seriously bad luck," you write about the blocking event. No! It's much more than bad luck, and this is at the heart of my piece at Huffpost on the subject. It is directly traceable to changes in the thickness gradients, mean zonal winds, jet stream behavior and - hence - to arctic summer sea ice loss. This makes it much more obviously a "climate change engendered" storm than most, in fact. My piece is at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/climate-change_b_2032363.html

2. "When it comes to policy responses, though, it doesn’t really matter exactly what role man-made climate change plays in amplifying storms." 

Personally, I would say that it does. For example, Bryan, what measures should we undertake first? If the shifting arctic is a primary driver of current extreme weather, that is of profound interest from a policy perspective, I would say.

In fact, I just did a two part series at Huffpost which might interest you, in that it all takes off from the Greenpeace event that you moderated last month, and looks at this arctic situation from a policy perspective - 

#1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/arctic-climate-change_b_1911550.html

#2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/saving-the-arctic-ice-gre_b_1960151.html

wholefed
wholefed

We Are What You Eat

The irony is the greatest single activity we can do for the environment is to adopt a Plant Based diet.

Mark Bittman recently commented in the New York Times: Five years ago, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization published a report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which maintained that 18 percent of greenhouse gases were attributable to the raising of animals for food. The number was startling.

A couple of years later, however, it was suggested that the number was too small. Two environmental specialists for the World Bank, Robert Goodland (the bank’s former lead environmental adviser) and Jeff Anhang, claimed, in an article in World Watch, that the number was more like 51 percent. It’s been suggested that that number is extreme, but the men stand by it, as Mr. Goodland wrote to me this week: “All that greenhouse gas isn’t emitted directly by animals. ”But according to the most widely-used rules of counting greenhouse gases, indirect emissions should be counted when they are large and when something can be done to mitigate or reduce them.”

Make a commitment to support your health by embracing a Plant Based diet. Once that commitment is made you will realize the enormity of the impact it has on a myriad of issues.

Full Post: http://wholefed.org/2012/04/30/we-are-what-you-eat/

Ian Welch

PlumbLine
PlumbLine

Even as Jesus fortold of Israels dispersing 70 A.D. and eventual regathering 1948 A.D., He also spoke of things that would happen all over the world, just before He returned.............. Luke 21:24-26........24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled..............The Coming of the Son of Man......25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.................Matthew 24:7........7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

joukot
joukot

It is not important if this or that hurricane is caused by climate change. The important point is if once in a century hurricane begins to take place every few years. IPCC is wording their findings very carefully as scientists should, but if scientists say something is true, it is much more certain than a testimony of two independent witnesses in the court. Even a low confidence of scientists on the increase of hurricanes because of the climate change is a serious matter, and it is much cheaper to prevent an accident than to repair the consequences.

romerjt
romerjt

For reasons unrelated to Sandy I recently made of spreadsheet of NOAA monthly temperature for the area (Albany, NY) near where I live.  Using the temps up to 1996 as the base, here’s the result: 

Of the 190 months since Jan. 1997, 138 were warmer thannormal, for every month with a below normal temp, 2 had above normal. 

Winters were even warmer. For the 64 winter months, 49, (77%), have been warmer than normal, inother words for every 1 month colder, 3 were warmer than normal.

In the 16 year since 1997, only 3 have been colder than normal (and very slightly).   The 15 warmer years, much warmer.  Since Jan. 2010, only 3 months have been colder than normal , this year which will be record-breaking, no so far.

I urge everyone to use the NOAA site to document the weather in their area understanding that the earth is not like a roast in the oven, weather and climate are complex and even though last year was the warmest year ever for 25 states east of the Rockies (15 other 2nd warmest) some states in the Pacific northwest were recording record cold.  That doesn’t disprove the general warming. America iswarmer.  Do the math, see for yourself.  And when you discover for yourself that its getting warmer,are you really going to think that warmer temps won’t change the climate?   Where’s the science for that?

elborradordelapiz
elborradordelapiz

Earth had a balance which is being destroyed by humans. This unbalance in earth causes the extremes to be even more extreme. Floods are bigger and more water, storms are stronger, dry spells are longer and drier, etc. Keep destroying the rain forest, and all the forests in North America, keep burning gasoline and coal, fly more airplanes and this is what happens.

Domgoj
Domgoj

First things first, Hurricane Sandy was not man-made. As mentioned above, it was blocked inland by a high pressure block. It was bad luck.In water resources engineering we have probabilities for storms such as Sandy and other less potent ones as well. Hurricane Sandy would be classified as a 100-year storm. This means the probability of Sandy occurring is once every 100 years. Yes it is possible that two 100-year storms occur within a 100-year period, thats just how probability works sometimes. We will not/Should not see an event like Sandy in our lifetime. If you look at the list of great hurricanes, they can be traced to the early 1900s.These storms are not man-made! Much worse storms have been taking place since way before we've been around...

akpat
akpat

You do not have to beleive in climate change to do the right thing for the planet. Those who are old enough can remeber when the Cuyuhoga river in Ohio caught fire. It did so on a regular basis simply because it was pollted by discharges of hydrocarbon effluent. The EPA cleaned it up.

now we have this and although it may not have been caused by man made global warming we need to remember we only have one planet to live on and if we screw up well its over and will become really hard to live on for future generations.

There is no easy substitute for gasoline but we could lower our emissions by 50% just going over to nuclear power for electricity rather than coal which is a really toxic method of generating heat. Full of nasty heavy metals, and by products of sulfur you can easily find places in the world decimated by acid rain. Just go to Maine. The Kennebunk river is posted 'Dont eat Fish' mercury poisening from the industrial great lake belt, all caused by coal.

Its time to do the right thing, go back to products that last longer and need less energy to make. Of course that would be tough for the few at the top as they depend on huge consumer demand of cheaply  made products that are constantly renewed because they fall apart.

RachelByersKiernan
RachelByersKiernan

Apparently I'm a radical liberal.  I'm willing to listen to the conclusions of thousands of scientists when they say that man-made climate change is real.  I'm also willing to accept that millions of cars being driven every single over the past several decades can affect our environment, whereas gays getting married.... Well, not so much.

JimStarowicz
JimStarowicz

Denial of climate change or especially whether humans are causing the rapid growth of, look around and pay attention, is not a reason to stop innovative industries from developing which would cause economic growth in many area's, which is exactly what those parroting, especially elected officials, are doing and have been for some forty years, using other meme's that can't be used now, here at the same time we started shipping our experienced innovative trades off to other countries along with the alternative energy sources we had started developing!

WayneHurlburt
WayneHurlburt

Let's face it...Hurricane Sandy was man-made.(NOT a result of GlobalWarning...they needed to boost support for Global Warming so created anevent to do so). In addition to all the related information on how itwas created and guided along... 

Not sure how many followed thetracking of the storm as well as the MB levels, comparing them to the1997 simulation chart, but something strange happened near the end ofit's course. Within minutes of it hitting 940mb's (or shortlythereof), the trajectory and speed quickly changed. Immediately turningabruptly west as well as doubling its traveling speed (from 14mph to24-28mph). 

This change made landfall quicker and lower than theoriginal targeted landfall point. In the simulation they used a MinimumMB level of 935mb, making me believe that that was lowest possiblelevel to be maintained to achieve theirdesired outcome(or even controlability). Every test or implimentationhas its own Go-NoGo ranges. 

For simulation it was 935mb. My guess isthat for live testing was raised to 940mb to allow for unforseeableresults or consequences etc. I think there would have been moredamage and the actual power outages etc. that they were predicting, hadthe storm stayed on its targeted path. 

Someone/something interviened.Whether the perpertators themselves or someone discovered the plan.Murpy's Law ~ All actions have an equal and opposite reaction. i.e.like something attracting an object suddenly gets thrown in reverse andrepels it, its speed would increase and trajectory would alter.(depending on already set rotational speeds when initiated). 

Fruit For Thought! 

Source(s): 

http://www.weca.org/SET/report/node6.html 

http://www.brotherjohnf.com/forum/Thread-Hurricane-Sandy-FRANKENSTORM-Man-made-using-HAARP-Chemtrails-predicted-in-1997

KeithDeGiacomo
KeithDeGiacomo

Nice. Any excuse to beat the climate change drum. If we pay enough carbon taxes to Al Gore, all the hurricanes will go away.

Steve8866
Steve8866

Its a category 1 hurricane. Climate change? Global warming? Crying wolf for an average hurricane doesn't do the "movement" any good.

glennra3
glennra3

@WRBurton  Oh, if simply saying it made it so.

You can deny the change that is happening right under your nose, but your children and grandchildren will have to live with it nonetheless.

SterlingEricsson
SterlingEricsson

@WRBurton That is irrelevant, as only looking at temperatures over that small time frame is inherently statistically flawed. That's why climate change is measured over several decades (30 years at minimum) and not a single one. Especially if you're comparing temperatures to 1998, where the El Nino event of that year caused record high temperatures. So, yes, temperatures have been increasing over the past 14 years, it's just that they had yet to cross the outlier year of 1998. But that limit has been crossed this year, so your entire point is invalid anyways. So, no, it is not a fact.

Seriously, look at the overall trend for the past 100 years and try to seriously say that there has been no warming.

gopvictory
gopvictory

@Tmacoctavius The coldest and wettest in the UK in decades. Antarctic has more ice now than in decades...

SterlingEricsson
SterlingEricsson

@rock0267 No one that has a degree in actually studying climate has ever disproven the existence of climate change. In fact, all scientists agree that climate change is occurring. The question is whether humanity is having an impact on it.

Maybe you should actually know what you're talking about before you comment? Maybe even know an elementary school level of information about the subject?

romerjt
romerjt

@rock0267 They are called thermometers, do you have one?  If you weren't under the 0267 rock you might have noticed how warm its been lately, last winter was the warmest since the data began in 1895.  This year will be the warmest year since records began.  It's really not hard just go outside once in a while.  I live in the northeast where the ocean temps are so warm the lobsters have left Long Island, the ground fish are going further from shore to find colder water, the apple crop was destroyed for many farmers because March was so warm the trees began budding only to get frozen by the last frost, this is the third time in about 5 years, the same thing happen to cherries in Wis.  Last year there were 10 record high temps throughout the US for every one record low.  I could go on but you might get the point.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=3&year=2001&filter=4&state=110&div=0

rock0267
rock0267

thanks but no thanks. I will continue enjoying my steaks/hamburgers on a regular basis.

rock0267
rock0267

People seem to forget that this wasn't really that powerful of a storm. It was a Cat 1, for goodness sake. What made it powerful were two things. WHERE it hit (just bad luck, really) and the merging of another front coming down from the north. When these combined, it made it much worse. Yes, it was a big storm in the context of size, but the winds were 70-90 mph. A relatively minor hurricane (as these things are measured). Again, a bad luck situation where the other front was there to meet it. If not for that, this would NOT have been a 'superstorm'. Hence, no climate change relation.

MikeBromley
MikeBromley

@elborradordelapiz Nice tale.  You believe, clearly, that Balance and Extreme are one in the same?  Have you actually done a simple google search on the history of weather extremes, or are you just nursing at the teat of that which makes you comfortable in your beliefs?  Go on, please.  Do it.  Some research.  Don't take Time/Warner's word for it.

WayneHurlburt
WayneHurlburt

@Domgoj LOL...also coincidentally named Sandy exact same name as the 1997 huricanne simulation taking the exact same path and storm type. OK... you convinced me... o.O

MikeBromley
MikeBromley

@akpat You equivocate between chemical pollution (Cuyahoga river, Love canal, etc) and a supposed 'pollutant', CO2.  You say one doesn't need to 'believe' in climate change.  Well that is telling.  It's a belief system now, is it?  Personally, I don't believe in it!  But I'm not going to condone doing 'the right thing' (whatever that is) based on a problem that doesn't exist, or that I 'don't have to believe in'.  

WayneHurlburt
WayneHurlburt

@RachelByersKiernan I'm not saying that man has contributed to some extent to a climate change, but not to the extent they want us to believe. Especially after seeing a storm die down and almost dispurse only to have it toyed with and manipulated to the point of becoming one of the largest scale (sizewise) that we have had in recorded times as well as the lowest MB(milibar) rating @  940mb, simply to prove a need of support for Warming Global???

WayneHurlburt
WayneHurlburt

@JimStarowicz This may be true, but if so why don't we use HAARP for that very purpose of alternate energy sources (upon which the it was originally designed for by Nikola Tesla, before our government took control over it). Now we use it for more secretive purposes  i.e. creating a false weather threat placing millions of lives at risk???!!!

romerjt
romerjt

@WayneHurlburt "let's face it"?  So your saying, this guy met a guy who told him there was a drill about a natural disaster, so without any, I mean zero, evidence or even explanation explaining how a hurricane could be created  . . . you're believing it . .  lets face it you're nuts.

idknonsense
idknonsense

@Steve8866 I don't think that the largest hurricane in recorded history qualifies as "an average hurricane"

SterlingEricsson
SterlingEricsson

@gopvictory @Tmacoctavius Cherrypicking things that are different doesn't say anything. There's a reason why it's called "global climate". Not "If this one part of the world is different, then the climate elsewhere can't be changing". 

And the Antarctic has more ice because of the ice melting in the Arctic. It's causing moisture to enter the water cycle and get deposited on the other side of the globe. 

AshleyLawton
AshleyLawton

@SterlingEricsson @rock0267 Actually, there is a pretty strong consensus that human activity is the cause. The real question is what the effects will be. Storms like this become more likely as well as coastal flooding. One book I read hypothesized that weather, in general, will become more extreme. Summers hotter, winters colder. Coastal areas will flood (compromising cities), inland get dryer (compromising our agriculture). 

On the other hand, I'm from Colorado and our mountains are destroyed by the pine beetle -- it lives in the trees and because of global warming, fewer die in the winter, and they have longer summers to breed. They used to be able to breed once a summer, and now its twice. Trees are also dying exponentially. It's extremely to tell how many of these beetles are out there and how many trees are dead. Trying to stop the beetle or stabilize those ecosystems are even harder. I know most people don't care about the Pine Beetle, but it demonstrates that climate change is happening. It demonstrates the secondary and tertiary effects. Add all the effects of global warming together, and you have a problem that is logistically impossible and economically disastrous.

That's why changing the way we think about energy is vital. Diversify our portfolio of sources, improve efficiency of technologies, create a better grid, and build a national infrastructure. Most importantly, energy is not exclusive to singular places like oil rigs or wind farms. We can put energy collection devices anywhere and connect them all together. Check out the dutch system. It's pretty cool. Also my new favorite is the Windstalk. Pretty stupid looking, but they're not as ugly as oil rigs. They don't disturb wildlife and you can put them in the ocean :)

joukot
joukot

@rock0267 This comment argues against something that was not in my message. Climate change increases the likelihood of all sorts of storms, this increases the likelihood of powerful storms (for simple statistical reasons even more than all storms). Whether Sandy was caused by the climate change is irrelevant, the relevant issue is the number of all storms, including powerful storms. In crossfire it is bad luck, if a bullet hits you, but the likelihood certainly depends on the total number of bullets fired.

rock0267
rock0267

Katrina was a true powerful storm. A Cat 5. But it was NOT a 100 year storm. Cat 5s happen occassional. Nothing unusual about that. It was WHERE it hit that made it worse. The lowest elevation city in the country surrounded by levees. A virtual bowl in the ground. The leves were only rated for a Cat 3 storm. I used to live down there. They have been fretting a storm greater than a Cat 3 for over 20 years. It was their own fault for never upgrading their strength. The levees didn't hold (predictably) and the bowl filled with water. It was the flooding that did all the damage, not the storm.

WayneHurlburt
WayneHurlburt

@elborradordelapiz @Domgoj As a matter of fact I haven't, there are cases that are 100 year storms but Sandy(and even Katrina) was not one. In Katrina's case there wasn't enough people with the knowledge to look into the storms build up as it started to physical confirm the manipulation being done.

HAARP is a device containing 180 towers (with 10,000 watts capability each) totaling 1.8 million watts of energy that can be directed into the ionisphere to heatup/build up this energy and release this energy back down to earth.

 Hmmm.. on a side note, what do you think that kind of energy could do to the Ozone Layer, directed to a single point???

People who think storms cannot be made, apparently slept through science class in high school/college???

http://pulsescan.blogspot.com/2012/10/hurricane-sandy-frankenstorm-man-made.html

WayneHurlburt
WayneHurlburt

@romerjt @WayneHurlburt Watch the 1st video showing the Chem Trails along with HAARP's activity during the storm had it's NY sensor  raised to unchartable range of over 10magnitude on a 1-10 scale during the course of the storm.

rock0267
rock0267

too bad it WASN'T the largest hurricane. Thanks for playing though. It was a Cat 1, period. Educate yourself before looking foolish on your facts before posting.

WayneHurlburt
WayneHurlburt

@rock0267 Location was the point of that test. Corporations need land they buy up and use for commercial purposes. It was kind of a coastal test for the PLANNED Oil Spill...YES I said planned Oil Spill. There was video showing a device that wasn't suppose to be and even posted on the web a the time but was quickly removed.

Now that land can be used without having to payout for residential property taxes, codes the list goes on. In addition the corporations made out hundreds of millions just in clean up, as well as selling stocks days before it happened. It was all a money power play. If you dig deep enough behind the scenes instead of simply taking what the government/media(gov't controlled), you'd find out a lot they don't want you to know.